Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 13th May for the Whitsuntide Recess- met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Bridgwater Corporation Bill [Lords],

Gateshead Extension Bill,

Kendal Corn Rent Bill,

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

As amendod, considered; to be read the Third time.

Dagenham Trading Estate Bill [Lords],

Read a second time, and committed.

Hove Pier Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Sidmouth Water Bill [Lords],

Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Humber Bridge Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Thursday.

Church of Scotland Trust Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SITUATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILN: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the House the latest information he has as to the political situation in India?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement in regard to the present political situation in India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): As regards the civil disobedience movement the period has been quiet, the only new feature being an attempt to revive salt raids in two places in the Bombay Presidency. During the past fortnight grave communal rioting has occurred in Bombay. The rioting was not organised and did not take the form of clashes between considerable bodies but con-
sisted of surprise attacks on temples, mosques or shops and murderous attacks by gangs of both communities. Casualties were mostly inflicted in isolated encounters, many being stabbing cases, and the gangs dispersed rapidly on the approach of patrols, who found the streets empty on their arrival. The Curfew Order and the order prohibiting assemblies which were put in force on the I6th May and the establishment of military and police posts prevented the formation of large bodies, and the combing out by the police with the assistance of the military of bad characters, who have been placed in an emergency jail, stopped looting and incendiarism.
By the 19th May the situation was under control and on that evening the Bombay battalion of the Auxiliary Force, less the light motor patrol and field company, was disembodied. The position continues to improve but the Bombay Government will not relax their intensive precautions until order is completely re-established. In the mill area, where serious trouble threatened, pickets and patrols prevented any large clashes, and the mill operatives who had ceased work at 49 mills on the 19th May began to return, with the result that the number of mills closed on the 20th May was 35 and on the 21st May 14. Final figures of casualties are not available but by the 21st May the dead numbered more than 130 and the injured more than 1,640. By that date 836 arrests had been made.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of these very regrettable communal disturbances, have the so-called Congress Volunteers, who claim to have a certain control over the Hindu population at any rate, taken any active part in supporting the Government in bringing back conditions of law and order?

Sir S. HOARE: So far from having been a help, they have in certain cases been a public danger and in all cases a public nuisance.

MONSIEUR PRIVAT.

Mr. LAW: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India how long Monsieur Edmond Privat was in India; and whether the Secretary of State was consulted before passport facilities were granted to him?

Sir S. HOARE: M. Privat was in India for six weeks at the beginning of this year. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the reports in the Press are true that M. Privat is a professor of Geneva University and has been a delegate of the Swiss Government on the Council of the League of Nations?

Sir S. HOARE: As far as my information goes, M. Privat is not a professor of the University of Geneva and has never represented the Swiss Government at the League of Nations. I believe that on one or two occasions he represented the Persian Government.

Miss RATHBONE: Is it not the case that M. Privat is a lecturer at the University of Geneva, not a professor?

Sir S. HOARE: I do not know.

INDIAN ARMY.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that 13 battalions of infantry, one of pioneers, and two cavalry regiments of the Indian Army are now in process of Indianisation, he is satisfied that the Army in India is sufficiently strong to meet all likely demands?

Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir. The actual numbers of units affected are 12 battalions of infantry, one of pioneers and three regiments of cavalry.

Sir A. KNOX: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these units would be equally as effective in communal disturbances as present units organised and commanded by British officers?

Sir S. HOARE: I have great faith in my military advisers, in the Commander-in-Chief and his advisers in India, and I am satisfied that the answer I have given is a fair one.

Sir A. KNOX: Are the military authorities in India entirely in agreement with this scheme of Indianisation?

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Are these regiments composed entirely of Hindus or Mahommedans or of Hindus and Mahommedans?

Sir S. HOARE: I should require notice of that question.

AIR SERVICE (AUSTRALIA).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can now make any further statement as to whether arrangements can be made with the Government of India to enable the necessary co-operation to be given for Imperial Airways to operate a service from this country to Australia at an early date?

Sir S. HOARE: I am unable to make any statement at present.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to make a statement?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I cannot. This is a complicated matter and has been under consideration for some time.

CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will give the latest available figures showing the number of co-operative societies in India and the total membership of those societies; and if he can also give figures showing the proportion of members of cooperative societies per 1,000 of the population in each of the chief provinces?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the latest figures available showing the total working capital invested in registered co-operative societies in India; if he can state what proportion State aid bears to the total working capital; and what was the total amount issued by these co-operative societies in India as loans?

Sir S. HOARE: With the permission of the hon. Members, I will answer these questions together. The figures desired are contained in "Statistical Statements relating to the Co-operative Movement in India during the year 1929–30." A copy of this publication is being placed in the Library.

WAR CLAIM (MRS. TEBBITT).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mrs. Tebbitt, wife of a British subject, who lost her property in the Rhineland during the period of British occupation; and whether he has taken any action in the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): If my hon. Friend will supply me with the information on which his question is based, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: In view of the fact that this is a rather complicated case, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman privately?

Sir J. SIMON: Of course, I shall be pleased.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

Mr. CH0RLT0N: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if, in the existing arrangements, under which His Majesty's Minister makes his headquarters at Peking, he will see that a trade representative is permanently stationed at Shanghai?

Sir J. SIMON: The Commercial Counsellor to His Majesty's Legation in China is permanently stationed at Shanghai.

RENDITION AGREEMENT.

Mr. RHYS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied that China is properly carrying out the Rendition Treaty of Wei-hai-wei, particularly as regards Articles XIV and XVII?

Sir J. SIMON: I have received no complaints regarding the execution of the Rendition Agreement either on general grounds or in respect of the particular articles mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. RHYS: If I am able to bring information to his notice, will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Sir J. SIMON: I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will do so.

GREEK REFUGEE LOAN (INTEREST PAYMENT).

Lord SCONE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will in-
quire of the Greek Government their intentions regarding the payment of the interest, now overdue, on the 1924 Greek refugee loan, which was issued under the auspices of the League of Nations?

Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's Government have several times addressed strong representations to the Greek Government. Furthermore, in the statement which the representative of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom made to the Council of the League of Nations on Saturday he expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government their deep regret that the Greek Government should have failed to carry out their solemn obligations undertaken towards their creditors, the League, and the Governments represented on the International Financial Commission. A similar statement was also made on behalf of the French Government. The Greek representative made a statement, explaining the difficult situation of Greece, and informed the council that the Greek Government intend to lay proposals before the bondholders shortly.
The Council then adopted the following resolution:
The council, conscious of its special responsibilities in the case of loans issued under the auspices of the League,
Desires to impress on the Greek Government the necessity of making every effort to comply with its obligations, and in this connection refers to the resolution which the council adopted on l5th April.
The council feels bound to emphasise that a failure to have due regard to their international financial obligations on the part of those countries which have benefited from loans issued under the auspices of the League must have the gravest consequences, not only on the credit of such countries, but also on the ability of the League to render collective assistance in the future.
This was accepted by the Greek representative who expressed the earnest hope of his Government that they might as soon as possible be in a position to resume full payments on their external debt.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORT TRADE (PAYMENTS).

Mr. CHORLTON: 13.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps he is taking to obtain the
release of the frozen remittances of British traders in Central and South Europe and South America?

Mr. JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The severity of these difficulties varies greatly from country to country. In all of them the commercial diplomatic officers are closely and unceasingly engaged in watching the interests of United Kingdom exporters and giving such assistance as is possible. Where conditions permit they have been able to achieve a substantial measure of success.

Mr. CHORLTON: Can the hon. Member give rather more definite particulars as to what is happening?

Mr. COLVILLE: It is not possible to review the whole field within the compass of question and answer. If the hon. Member will raise specific points, I shall be glad to give him what information I have.

Mr. CHORLTON: 14.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if, in addition to the particulars the department publishes periodically regarding trade restrictions, he will include the adverse effect on the balance of trade of the non-payment of sums due to British exporters for their goods?

Mr. COLVILLE: Statistics showing the total United Kingdom trade with individual countries are published quarterly but information regarding the payment of accounts is neither called for nor supplied by exporters. I am unable therefore to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. CHORLTON: Is the hon. Member aware that exporters are only now beginning to appreciate the value of this information?

Mr. COLVILLE: I am very anxious to make all possible use of these returns, but the suggestion of the hon. Member is impracticable for the reason I have stated.

RUSSIA (EXPORT CREDITS).

Mr. B00THBY: 15.
(for
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he can yet give any further information as to export credits facilities to Russia?

Mr. COLVILLE: As a result of the negotiations with the Soviet trade representative, it has been agreed that further credits for the sale to Russia of goods manufactured in this country may be granted, with the Export Credits Guarantee, up to a total amount of £1,600,000. The terms will be fixed by the Advisory Committee in each ease, but the maximum period of credit will be 18 months and a substantial portion will be at 12 months.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Has the hon. Gentleman pointed out to the Soviet Government that, if they are to receive these credits from us, it would be highly desirable that they should purchase British as opposed to Norwegian herring?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

REORGANISATION COMMISSIONS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state what progress has been made with the pig and milk organisation inquiries; and when their reports may be expected?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): The recently appointed Reorganisation Commissions for milk and for pigs and pig products have made good progress, but at this early stage of their investigations it is quite impossible to say when their reports may be expected.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the pig industry is completely paralysed, and, having regard to the fact that the Government have taxed feeding stuffs, can we expect these reports immediately?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the Commissions are very well aware of the necessity of reporting at an early date. They have already had two informal and six formal meetings.

BUTTER IMPORTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that Devon producers have been obliged to withhold supplies of butter from the local purveyors owing to heavy imports of New Zealand butter; and what action he proposes to take in order to secure to the home producer the advantage of the home market?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that in some instances difficulty has been experienced in disposing of locally produced butter. This is a matter which will fall for consideration in the light of the discussions at Ottawa, and my right hon. Friend will realise that I cannot anticipate decisions which may then be reached.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will my right hon. Friend answer the last part of the question, as to what action he proposes to take in order to secure to the home producer the advantage of the home market?

Sir J. GILMOUR: That is exactly the point to which I have replied.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are the right hon. Gentleman's question not really an attack on Empire Free Trade?

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Are we to understand from the reply that my right hon. Friend does not mean to do anything at all?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir.

BEER (NATIONAL MARK).

Mr. C. DUNCAN: 19.
for
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the interests of British growers of barley and hops and of consumers, he will consult farmers and brewers on the possibility of making from British materials a beer of the gravity of 1,042 degrees, to be known as National mark beer and to be sold at not more than 6d. a pint?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It has not been possible so far, for financial reasons, to make the investigations necessary as a preliminary to the introduction of a National mark scheme for beer. While the possibility of introducing such a scheme will be kept in view, I do not anticipate that it would include any provision for price regulation, as suggested by the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE FACILITIES (FISH TRADE).

Mr. BURNETT: 21.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give favourable consideration to the request of the fish trade for the postponement of the closing time of the night telephone
service from 7 a.m. to 7.30 a.m., in view of the increase of trade likely to result therefrom and the consequent gain to the revenues of the Government?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): In view of the substantial loss of telephone revenue which, I am advised, would be involved, I regret I cannot see my way at present to extend the night rate period as suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. BURNETT: Is it not the case that fish salesmen, who are the largest users of telephones in the country, find their marketing of fish seriously hampered by the high rates, and would not the using of the telphone more frequently bring in increased revenue to the Treasury?

Sir K. WOOD: I, of course, appreciate the difficulties of the fish traders, but there are difficulties from the point of view of the Post Office as well, and I shall be glad to discuss them with my hon. Friend.

AIR MAIL, SINGAPORE.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 22.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he has any information to show what proportion of air-mail traffic to Singapore during 1931 was carried by British and Dutch aeroplanes, respectively?

Sir K. WOOD: I have not the exact figures immediately available, but the great bulk of the air-mail traffic referred to is carried by the Dutch service, as the only material advantage offered by the Imperial Airways service to Karachi is a later posting in London of about one day as compared with the ordinary mail.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance has finished its deliberations; and, if so, when the final report will be published?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): My right hon. Friend gave a full reply on this subject to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) on 5th May. I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to this.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to state approximately when the report is likely to be available?

Mr. HUDSON: That is so.

STATISTICS (YORKSHIRE).

Mr. LUNN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were unemployed in Yorkshire in August, 1931, and at the latest date?

Mr. HUDSON: The numbers of insured persons in the coalmining industry classification recorded as unemployed at Employment Exchanges in Yorkshire were 68,515 at 24th August, 1031, and 72,093 at 25th April, 1932.

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these numbers are increasing every week?

Mr. HUDSON: The figures I have given show it.

Mr. PRICE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour the unemployment figures for the month of October, 1931, and the figures for April, 1932, for the Barnsley Exchange area?

Mr. HUDSON: The numbers on the registers of the Barnsley Employment Exchange were 9,435 at 26th October, 1931, and 10,132 at 25th April, 1932.

Mr. PRICE: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest unemployment figures for the South Kirkby area, and the increase or decrease upon the previous month?

Mr. HUDSON: At 25th April, 1932, there were 1,760 persons on the registers of the South Kirkby Employment Exchange, an increase of 105 as compared with 21st March.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour the present position with regard to the administration of the means test in Wolverhampton?

Mr. HUDSON: Between 12thNovember, 1931, and 2nd April, 1932, 8,818 initial applications for transitional payments and 22,629 renewals were referred to the Wolverhamption Public Assistance Authority. Out of the total of 31,447 deter-
minations given, payment was allowed at maximum benefit rates in 24,634 cases, and at lower rates in 5,113 cases; while in 1,700 cases the needs of applicants were held not to justify payment being made. No later figures are at present available.

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. LUNN: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport how many schemes to provide work, approved by the Ministry of Transport, were in operation in May, 1931; how many in May, 1932; and how many schemes have been turned down by him since September last?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus): As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. LUNN: As it is now only ten minutes past Three o'clock, I would like the Minister to give the answer to the House. Not long ago, I was told by the Minister that 1,000 schemes had been turned down in the last four months by this Government, and it would be interesting to know what is the position now in that respect. [HON. MEMBERS: "Circulate it."] I think, Mr. Speaker, we might have the answer.

Mr. PYBUS: In May, 1931, 1,221 schemes of improvement and new construction affecting classified roads and bridges were recorded as being in operation. I regret that I am not yet in a position to give the corresponding figure for this month, the latest available return being in respect of March, 1932, when 711 schemes were in operation. Since September last it has been decided after consultation with the highway authorities concerned to defer or curtail approximately 1,100 schemes of this character which were previously approved for grant from the Road Fund; the bulk of the schemes had not been commenced. There were also in May, 1931, a number of schemes in operation under the Development (Loan Guarantees and Grants) Act, 1929. Although my Department is required to advise upon such of these schemes as affect transport or electricity, the responsibility for the grants is vested in the Treasury and the Ministry of Labour (for Parts I and II of the Act, respectively).

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (TRANSFERRED OFFICERS).

Mr. MANDER: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the latest figure of the number of officials who have been transferred from other Departments to the Department of Customs and Excise and elsewhere as a result of the passage of the Import Duties Act, and the number newly engaged?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): I have been asked to reply. The number of officials transferred from other Departments to the Customs and Excise Department since the 1st October, 1931, is 699, and the number newly engaged during the same period is 477. I would point out, however, that these numbers represent recruitment for the work of the Department as a whole and include making good normal wastage. As regards the Import Duties Advisory Committee, all the staff required have been obtained by transfer from other Departments; I am giving particulars regarding the number and grading of the staff of the committee in answer to the hon. Member's question No. 42.

Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say who is now carrying on the work previously done by the 600 men transferred from other Departments? Has the work ceased, or who is doing it?

Major ELLIOT: We are continually carrying out researches as to how the staff in the Departments can be cut down.

Mr. LAMBERT: Are there not far too many Civil Service officials?

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Mr. MANDER: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the staff of the Import Duties Advisory Committee at the latest available date?

Major ELLIOT: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate full particulars of the staff of the Committee at the present date in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.


Staff on 23rd May, 1932.


—
No.
Grade.
Salary.







£







Per annum.


Administrative
…
1
Secretary
…
1,800




1
Assistant Secretary
…
1,000–50–1,200




3
Principals
…
700–25–900


Executive
…
1
Statistical Officer
…
550–20–700




1
Senior Staff Officer
…
500–20–600




3
Staff Officers
…
400–15–500


Clerical
…
3
Higher Clerical Officers
…
300–15–400




14
Clerical Officers (Men)
…
60–250




2
Clerical Officers (Women)
…
60–180




8
"P" Class Clerks
…
—


Typing
…
1
Superintendent of Typists
…
150–7.10–180




10
Shorthand Typists and Typists
…
—







Per week.


Messengerial
…
3
Messengers (" P" Class)
…
29/-to 34/-


Total
…
51





In addition an Under-Secretary (£1,980) on loan from the Treasury is serving as Adviser and Personal Assistant to the Chairman.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL AREAS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made with the £2,000,000 scheme f Nor rural housing initiated by the Ministry in July, 1931?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): 114 councils have been informed that the committee appointed under the Act of last year are prepared to entertain applications in respect of 1,904 houses for the agricultural population, and these councils have for some time been preparing their detailed proposals. Only seven have as yet reached the stage of inviting tenders.

STATISTICS.

Mr. LUNN: 33.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses were being built by local authorities in May, 1931, and how many in May, 1932?

Mr. E. BROWN: 35,440 dwellings were under construction by local authorities at 30th April, 1931, and 33,493 at 30th April, 1932.

Mr. THORNE: 32.
(for Mr. HICKS) asked the Minister of Health what is the present estimated shortage of housing accommodation in England and Wales; what is the number of parlour-houses and
flats erected in each of the months January, February and March, 1932; and what action is being taken by the Ministry of Health to urge local authorities to press forward building schemes?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend regrets that he has no data on which to base such an estimate as is asked for in the first part of the question. Nor is he able to state the total numbers of parlour-houses and flats erected from time to time in England and Wales. The numbers of houses and flats erected with State assistance and completed in the three months mentioned were 6,218, 6,402 and 5,916. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) to the answer given to the question put by him on 12th May.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 34.
for
asked the Minister of Health if he can furnish figures showing the number of families living in one-room tenements in England and Wales, with separate figures for each of the large towns?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend regrets that the figures asked for are not yet available.

Mr. C. DUNCAN: 35.
for
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses or flats to let at
rents of 10s. weekly or below that are being erected by local authorities; the number of houses or flats of this type erected since 1st November, 1931; and the number of schemes and total of houses provided in such schemes at present under consideration by the Ministry?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend regrets that the exact particulars asked for are not available, but the number of houses and flats of the non-parlour type, the erection of which has been authorised since 1st November last, is approximately 21,000, and the rents of these houses should generally not exceed 10s. a week.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF (WEST RIDING).

Mr. PRICE: 36.
asked the Minister of Health the number receiving public assistance in the West Riding of Yorkshire area at the end of September, 1931; the number receiving public assistance at the latest available date; and the number per 10,000 of the population on the respective dates?

Mr. E. BROWN: The number of persons in receipt of poor relief in the geographical county of the West Riding of Yorkshire (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals) on Saturday, the 26th September, 1931, was 110,878, and on Saturday, 7th May, 1932, was 137,262. These numbers are equivalent to 328 and 406, respectively, per 10,000 of the population.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (SCHOOL AGE).

Mr. LEWIS: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will cause inquiry to be made as to the saving that would be effected if the age at which compulsory education commences were raised to six years to bring our practice more into conformity with that of the other great Powers of the world?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): My Department is looking into this matter with a view to furnishing me with the information necessary to answer a question which is on the Order Paper for next Thursday. This information is not yet complete, but I would remind my hon.
Friend that the matter has been considered by two previous Administrations.

Mr. LEWIS: Do I understand that this information will be available on Thursday next?

Sir D. MACLEAN: I shall give the answer on Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S ROLL (ARMY CONTRACTS).

Mr. LEWIS: 39.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many employés a firm must have for the War Office to require the firm to comply with the conditions of the King's Roll as a condition of holding a Government contract?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Any relaxation of the general rule on account of the small size of a firm would not apply to firms employing 25 or more hands.

Mr. LEWIS: Seeing that the requirement of the King's Roll is only 5 per cent of the total employés, will not my hon. Friend see in future that small firms as well as large are asked to agree to the King's Roll as a condition of holding a contract?

Mr. COOPER: The imposition of the condition on very small firms would obviously imply very great hardship in some cases. The present rule has been observed by all Governments for the last 12 years, and has answered very well.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH ARMY (STRENGTH).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK: 40.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what was the strength of the French Army in 1913 and what was the strength in 1931?

Mr. COOPER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 8th March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANK OVERDRAFTS (INTEREST).

Mr. POTTER: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of cheaper money following the reduction in the Bank rate, he is prepared to introduce legislation with a view to fixing a
maximum rate of interest to be charged in respect of overdrafts granted by the Bank of England and the joint stock banks?

Major ELLIOT: I should welcome any arrangement which would promote the widest possible extension of the benefits of cheap money consequent on the reduction in the Bank rate, but I do not think that this object can be attained by means of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR LOAN (CONVERSION).

Mr. JOEL: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the state of the money market, he can now make any announcement as to his intentions with regard to a new conversion loan?

Major ELLIOT: I regret that I am unable to make a statement on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRAND OPERA (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Mr. LEWIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that an opportunity shall be afforded for this House to debate the question as to whether the option to determine the agreement for the opera subsidy at the end of the current year shall be exercised or not?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The payment of the subsidy is governed by the terms of a Supplemental Agreement of the 11th of June, 1931, between the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation (Command Paper No. 3884). As this Agreement is for a period expiring on the 31st of December, 1935, and it does not contain an option of termination on the part of the Post Office at the end of the current year or at any other date, I am unable to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (ECONOMIC SITUATION).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 8.
for
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the resolution
passed by the International Labour Conference calling for immediate international action to deal with the world economic crisis; and whether His Majesty's Government has given any instructions to their delegate on the League of Nations Council with regard to it?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to this resolution of the International Labour Conference which is of an extremely elaborate character, and suggests that a list should be drawn up of big international works for economic development, and for national works on a large scale, calculated to encourage the general development of the economic situation of the countries concerned, and that Government delegates should make the necessary financial arrangements therefor and have them put in hand without delay. This resolution was put before the Council of the League, on which, of course, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is represented, and the Council has decided to transmit it to the Assembly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY.

Mr. GROVES: 16.
asked the Minister of Agriculture which, if any, of the beet- sugar factories in Great Britain which produce raw sugar only, took less than the available maximum subsidy during the 1931–32 season and yet were able to operate on a profitable basis?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I assume that the hon. Member refers to factories that did not accept the special advances payable under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Act, 1931. One of the six factories manufacturing only raw sugar during the 1931–32 campaign was not in receipt of these advances, and the accounts of the Company for the year ended 31st March, 1932, show that this factory operated profitably.

Mr. GROVES: Is there any tendency in the direction of the reduction of the subsidy?

Mr. GROVES: 17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the potential maximum seasonal through-put of the existing beet-sugar factories in England and Scotland; what has been the actual maximum through-put in any year since the inception of the sugar-subsidy scheme; and whether any investigations have been
made into the economies which could be secured by the elimination of redundant factories?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The maximum through-put of the beet-sugar factories in any one year since the beginning of the subsidy period was attained in 1930–31 when 3,060,408 tons of beet were dealt with, and I doubt whether, even in the most favourable circumstances, this figure could be greatly exceeded. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. MARY'S SHIPPING COMPANY, CARDIFF.

Mr. GROVES: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the report of the inspector appointed by the Board of Trade to investigate into the affairs of the St. Mary's Shipping Company, Cardiff, can be made available to the Member for Stratford or any other Member of the House of Commons; if so when can such report be seen and perused; and whether any conditions of secrecy are imposed upon a Member of the House of Commons respecting the affairs of such company?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): My right hon. Friend has no authority to make the report available except to the company and to the applicants for the investigation. This has been done, and the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question therefore do not arise.

Mr. GROVES: Is it the fact that a case of this kind can arise in this country without Members of this House having the right to investigate it? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary. Are officers of his Department compelled to investigate a case in which certain complaints have been made and are Members of this House not to have facilities to go into the details of such a case?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Everybody concerned has had a copy of this report and to that extent the statute has been complied with. There is no obligation to furnish copies of the report to those who are not concerned.

Mr. GROVES: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that Members of this
House are concerned in investigating every affair in this country in which there is any suspicion that wrong things have taken place? I beg to give notice that at the first available opportunity I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOTTERIES, SWEEPSTAKES AND BETTING.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: by Private Notice
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now inform the House as to the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Lotteries, etc., and the names of the Commissioners?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir Herbert Samuel): As I have already indicated, the reference to the Royal Commission will be framed in wide terms, and I will give the precise reference when I am able also to announce the personnel of the Commission, which I hope will be in the course of a few days. I am awaiting replies to two invitations.

Sir W. DAVISON: What is the cause of the great delay in the appointment of this Commission; and does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the urgency of the matter has been greatly accentuated since the Irish Free State Government have now decided to tax certain proceeds of a lottery, for which this country provides many millions?

Sir H. SAMUEL: There has been, I think, no undue delay. I have had to await replies from various persons who have been invited.

Mr. LEVY: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the extreme urgency of this matter and that it is of national importance, seeing that many millions of pounds are going from this country to Ireland and the Irish Free State Government are taking part of the proceeds to augment their exchequer?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS, SOUTH YORKSHIRE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: by Private Notice
asked the Minister of Health how many persons have been rendered homeless at
Fishlake and Bentley due to the recent floods, and whether an inspector has been dispatched to investigate the conditions?

Mr. E. BROWN: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been called to this matter hitherto. He will arrange for an inspector to visit the locality in question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I repeat the question a day or two hence, can I have a full reply then?

Mr. BROWN: We will do it as quickly as possible.

Mr. MOLSON: Will the Minister of Health request his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture also to send an official of his Department, as we have been pressing for something to be done about this drainage ever since the last floods, in September?

Mr. BROWN: I will call my right hon. Friend's attention to that question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that already over 1,500 people have been rendered homeless, for the second time in 12 months, and that the present Minister of Agriculture has set on one side a drainage scheme which in all probability would have obviated a repetition of the floods from which the people are now suffering?

Mr. BROWN: I have not had time to complete my preliminary inquiries about this matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Lord President of the Council what will be the Business of the House for Friday next?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Second Reading of the Sunday Entertainments Bill and, if there is time, other Orders.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is to be a Government Measure, and if Government Whips will be put on?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE I.—(Duties on tea.)

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after the word "thirty-two," to insert the words:
until the nineteenth day of April, nine-hundred and thirty-three.
As we understand it, the Clause, if it remains unamended, would have the effect of making this Tea Duty of a permanent character. There is no limit of date to its operation, and the purpose of the Amendment is to introduce a limitation upon the period of the application of the duty. I do not think it would be fair to hon. Members who have other Amendments on the Paper to discuss the merits or demerits of the Tea Duty as such on this Amendment, but I am concerned with raising the issue as to the propriety of allowing these words to remain unamended, with the effect that the duty will become of a permanent character.
It will be well known to the Committee that the Members on these benches have very strong objections to the Tea Duty as such, and that would be one strong reason, I submit, for introducing words to limit the duration of the effectiveness of the duty. Another reason is this: One of our strong objections to the duty is that it has the effect of altering the proportion of indirect as compared with direct taxation, and hon. Members opposite will not be surprised to find us challenging such a proposition. If this Committee should determine that the time has come to make some re-

adjustment in the proportions of indirect and direct taxation, we desire that that readjustment shall not have effectiveness beyond the date indicated in the Amendment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) advanced more a general than a particular case for the Amendment. He advanced the case that indirect taxation as such is obnoxious to the party for which he speaks, and that he desires, therefore, that it should be criticised on every possible occasion. We take no objection to that, but it is not necessary to have these words in order to raise the question of indirect or direct taxation or even to raise the question of this particular tax, because in the annual Finance Bill all these matters are brought under review, and will be reviewed by the party opposite. The objection to making it an annual tax is that it leads to certain difficulties in the way of clearances at the end of the year, and I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member and his friends will not find it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. JONES: May I take it that it is the deliberate intention of the Government that it shall become a permanent duty?

Major ELLIOT: Yes. It is our desire, as in the case of other duties, that this duty should run on unless it is specifically brought to an end. The practice which the hon. Member seeks to introduce is not, we think, desirable.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes 24; Noes 232.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[3.28 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Daggar, George
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William



Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Tinker and Mr. Groves.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Apsley, Lord
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsn'th, C.)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Patrick, Colin M.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Harris, Sir Percy
Peat, Charles U.


Blindell, James
Hartland, George A.
Penny, Sir George


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Bossom, A. C.
Harvey, Majors. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Potter, John


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Burnett, John George
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Hopkinson, Austin
Rathbone, Eleanor


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hornby, Frank
Rea, Walter Russell


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Horobin, Ian M.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Carver, Major William H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Robinson, John Roland


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ross, Ronald D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (Montr'se)
Hunciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leotric
Jamieson, Douglas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Chotzner, Alfred James
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clarke, Frank
Ker, J. Campbell
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Colville, John
Knight, Holford
Scone, Lord


Conant, R. J. E.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Selley, Harry R.


Cook, Thomas A.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cooke, Douglas
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cooper, A. Duff
Leckie, J. A.
Slater, John


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lees-Jones, John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Levy, Thomas
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Lewis, Oswald
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Liddall, Walter S.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Stevenson, James


Dickie, John P.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Stones, James


Donner, P. W.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Strauss, Edward A.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mabane, William
Summersby, Charles H.


Ednam, Viscount
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Templeton, William P.


Emryt-Evans, P. V.
McKie, John Hamilton
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw.
Weymouth, Viscount


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
White, Henry Graham


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Goff, Sir Park
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Goldie, Noel B.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Moreing, Adrian C.
Womersley, Walter James


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W).
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Muirhead, Major A. J.



Hales, Harold K.
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Mr. Shakespeare and Lieut.-Colonel


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
North, Captain Edward T.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move in page 2, line 3, to leave out the word "Four-pence," and to insert instead thereof the word "Twopence."
Perhaps, Sir Dennis, you would allow us to discuss together this and the following Amendment—in line 4, to leave out
the word "Twopence," and to insert instead thereof the words "One penny." They both hang together as their object is to reduce the duty by half.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member, while discussing the first Amendment, can deal with the second.

Mr. TINKER: Our object in moving these Amendments is to cut down indirect taxation as much as we can. The Tea Duty is in accordance with the method of the present Government to increase the cost of living of the working people, and, although we realise that we cannot get the whole of the duty removed, we hope by argument and persuasion to be able to prevail on the Financial Secretary, if he has the power, to give way to a certain extent. This duty hits very hard the people whom we claim to represent; it will be felt mostly by the poorer classes, and we shall do all that we can to stay the hand of the Government in pursuing this form of taxation. The intention of the Government is evidently to change from the method of direct to the method of indirect taxation, and the Tea Duty is one of the means that they are adopting. Tea is a beverage which most of our people use at practically every meal, and to have that taxed is more than we can stand. We hoped that the Government would leave this matter over until after the Ottawa Conference, and would see what good for the world and this country came out of that conference before imposing taxation of this kind. However, the Government say that they must have taxes in order to raise a certain amount of money and that it is their intention to turn in this direction. This seems to be about the worst form of taxation, and really is not worthy of a great Government which is supposed specially to represent the national interests. I hope that before this week is out the Government will realise that this taxation does not meet with the approval of the people. In going round the country during the holiday I found a growing feeling of indignation against this kind of taxation, and the attention of the House of Commons ought to be called to it. I am hoping the arguments put forward on this occasion and on former occasions will prevail, and that the taxation which is proposed will be cut down by one-half in order to lessen its incidence on the people whom we claim to represent.

Mr. PRICE: In rising to support this Amendment I wish to reiterate and to emphasise all that has been said by the last speaker in protest against increasing the cost of a food which is used admittedly by the poorest people in the country. During the Budget speech of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer an indication was given that future taxation must take another course, but if the policy of the Government is to raise revenue from indirect taxation we shall be found strongly opposed to that procedure. Bad as the finances of the country are, I cannot believe that there is any need to put further burdens on the poorest of the people at a time like this. In industry, and particularly in the heavy industries, thousands of men are being thrown out of employment month by month owing, as we suggest, to the policy which the Government have adopted, and the number of people dependent upon outdoor relief in the county of Yorkshire and other Northern counties is increasing every day. We cannot be a party to the action of the Government in adding to the burdens of these poor people.
If this had been a. question of Dominion policy and the Government had waited till the Ottawa Conference had met we might have understood their action, but in view of their policy of imposing taxation on foodstuffs we must enter a strong protest against this Tea Duty. There are industries in which men are being thrown out of work or put on short time week in and week out, and yet the Government are paying no attention to that aspect of the matter, and are only concerning themselves with imposing duties on foodstuffs and other commodities needed by the poorest of the people. We suggest that there is no necessity for this Tea Duty. I do not expect that we shall get much sympathy from the supporters of the National Government, but we must place on record our sincere objection to further taxation in this direction. We cannot believe without far more proof that there is any need to transfer these national burdens on to the poorest of the people, who already have difficulty in finding the necessities of life. The poverty and distress in Yorkshire—and I know that it is the same in other counties—is greater than I have ever known it in all my life, and we cannot stand by and allow the Government to pursue this policy without entering the very strongest protest.

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in moving the Amendment, gave the Committee to
understand that it was to be considered in conjunction with the Amendment which follows. The name of the hon. Member is not attached to either of those two Amendments, and I do not know how far he is entitled to speak for those who drafted them, but the position should be made plain. If the Amendment does stand by itself, it attacks the principle of Imperial preference, as the effect of it would be to make the duty the same upon tea which is not the product of the Empire and tea which is an Empire product. If the Amendment is meant to be read in conjunction with the next Amendment, I take it hon. Members opposite are not challenging the principle of Imperial preference.

Mr. TINKER: The two Amendments were put down with the object of decreasing the Tea Duty by one-half, and for the purpose of facilitating the discussion of the subject we desired to consider them together.

Mr. LEWIS: Then I understand from the hon. Gentleman that no challenge to the principle of Imperial Preference is being offered by the Opposition?

Mr. LANSBURY: We wish to express our own view. You can say what you think about it, but it will not be our view.

Mr. LEWIS: I take it from the Leader of the Opposition that the hon. Member for Leigh was speaking without his book—

Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, no!

Mr. LEWIS: —and was not entitled to toll the Committee that this Amendment should be taken in conjunction with the other, because it was simply meant to halve the duty.

Mr. LANSBURY: It must be taken exactly as my hon. Friend said it.

Mr. LEWIS: But the Opposition cannot have it both ways. Either the Amendment must stand alone, in which case it destroys the principle of Imperial Preference, or it is to be read in conjunction with the Amendment following, in which case the principle of Imperial Preference stands. It may be that later the Opposition will have made up their mind as to what they do mean. May I say a word on the subject of Imperial
Preference now, in case some Member of the Opposition feels inclined to raise it later? The total consumption of tea in this country in 1931—the latest figures I have been able to get—amounted to about 461,000,000 1b. The total production of tea in the North of India and in Ceylon considerably exceeds that quantity. North India produced 334,000,000 lb. of tea and Ceylon 240,000,000 lb., so that even if we got no tea at all from sources outside the Empire those countries could supply all the tea we imported in 1931 and still have a considerable surplus for the use of other parts of the Empire and for use in India itself, where a good deal of tea is consumed.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member has already elucidated from the Opposition that no question of Imperial Preference is raised by this Amendment.

Mr. LEWIS: I am very glad to hear that explanation, because I thought the Leader of the Opposition hotly denied it.

Mr. LANSBURY: I only denied the right of the hon. Member to decide what our policy was, or what it was not.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) must understand that there is a difference between the view held by the Opposition and the particular view they arc advancing in an Amendment. This particular Amendment does not raise the question of Imperial preference generally, and therefore it cannot be discussed on this Amendment.

Mr. LEWIS: May I turn to the other side of the question? The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), referring to indirect taxation, said that it meant more taxation on the poor, but, if the hon. Member had said that the amount realised was more from all sections of the community, then I agree with him, and I think that is one of the merits of indirect taxation. All forms of taxation, either direct or indirect, are a burden on the community. It is true that direct taxation is not ralised to the same extent as indirect taxation by many persons in this country. The hon. Member for Leigh says that this particular tax, and other indirect taxes of a similar nature, are felt more by the ordinary taxpayers than by those who pay direct taxation—

Mr. TINKER: What I said was that taxation on tea and other kinds of articles of food are felt more than any other form of taxation which is imposed by the Government.

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member for Leigh means that the people realise that they are suffering more from this kind of taxation, whereas when the Income Tax is high, and trade is bad, those same people suffer through lack of employment, but they do not realise it. From that point of view, there is a great deal to be said for indirect taxation, and, if that is the only point that can be raised in favour of this Amendment, I hope the Committee will reject it.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The Committee must have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) with amazement, especially in view of the many Debates we have had on financial Resolutions during the last three or four weeks. If one fact more than another has been elicited in those Debates it is that the country is not suffering: from over-spending but from over-saving. If hon. Members will read the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) and those delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) they will realise that that point has been made over and over again in this House, and by almost every economic writer at the present time. The trouble of those right hon. Gentlemen has been that their friends, for the last three or four years, have been earning a considerable amount of money, and have not known where to put it. Surely hon. and light hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware that we are now experiencing the lowest rates of interest for money on short loan than has been experienced since the end of the War. If we put the burden of this Tea Duty upon the shoulders of the poor consumers, and make them pay £4,100,000 in tea taxation in a full year, the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that there will be £4,100,000 more in the hands of the bankers to give employment. That is the argument, but the City of London bankers have a great difficulty at the present time in finding suitable businesses in which to invest their money.
The argument of hon. Members opposite is that if you allow more money to
rest in the hands of the investing classes by lending them that money at a cheap rate of interest they will be able to provide additional employment, but the very opposite is true. What this country and the whole civilised world are looking for at the present time are spenders. If we can find people who will spend more money on goods, then employers will have more contracts, and, as a consequence, they will be able to satisfy the demands of the banks and more credit will be issued. The suggestion put forward by the supporters of this duty is that you should reduce the spending power of those who are at the moment providing £4,100,000 in taxation and hand it over to the bankers, who will be able to lend the money in order to stimulate trade and provide more employment. The argument that direct taxation necessarily increases unemployment has been repeated so often that people have begun to think that it is self-evident truth. It is true only in certain circumstances and under certain limited conditions, and it is not true at the present time in any part of the world. Is it argued that if the money to be raised by the Tea Duty were spent on personal consumption it would not give more employment? If that is the argument, I reply that the result will be the same if the poor person spends the money instead of paying it in increased taxation. It is often argued that, if a rich man employs a gardener, he is providing additional employment but that, if a poor man buys one pound of butter, he is not giving additional employment to the farmer. My argument is that personal consumption by the poor people gives employment in exactly the same way—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member referred to butter. May I point out that the question raised on this Amendment is tea and not butter. I think the hon. Member is getting a little bit too far away from the point under discussion by dealing with general principles of taxation.

Mr. BEVAN: I thought I should be entitled to argue against indirect taxation in the form of the Tea Duty.

4.0 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Up to a certain point, but I must warn the hon. Member that he was going rather too far. On
the lines he was inclined to go upon, he might just as well start a Debate on the question of the health of the nation, because of the effect tea had upon health. I must ask him to confine his remarks more closely to the actual Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. BEVAN: The Amendment which is on the Order Paper is to reduce the Tea Duty, and it is moved because we say that it is transferring part of the burden of taxation from the well-to-do classes to the poorer classes of the community. Of course, a general Debate in this House upon indirect taxation, as all general Debates upon particular Amendments, can be moved only if they are moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead or the right hon. Member for Epping. If a back bencher in this House attempts to argue the matter in general terms—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now making gross reflections upon the conduct of Debates in this House, and he must not do so.

Mr. LANSBURY: On that point of Order. This is a very important Ruling which you are giving, Sir Dennis. We are wanting to fight this tax because we understand it to be a tax on the poor which we think should be levied on the rich. We also want to argue the question that it will prevent poor people getting as much of a beverage which, to them, is very important, and that their health may suffer. If you rule that we are not to raise those questions in Debate, then I do not know what argument will be in order in a Debate of this kind. I would call your attention to the fact that the hon. Gentleman who spoke previously raised each of those questions in the speech which he made.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has done what he has done before; he has complained that I am ruling something out of order which I am not ruling out of order at all. I did not rule out of order either of those arguments; it would be absurd to do so. But there is a length to which certain arguments can be put, and there is a length beyond which those arguments may be inclined to stray into
realms which are no longer strictly applicable to the particular Amendment. In this case, I thought it my duty to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that although his argument was quite admissible, I thought he was carrying the Debate on those lines too far. With regard to the hon. Member who spoke before, I may call attention to the fact that in that case I did not on his arguments, except in one particular matter find occasion to stop him, but on one point I did. This is a matter of degree, and the right hon. Gentleman must allow the Chair to decide how far an argument can be carried.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have no wish to challenge your Ruling or your right to give any Ruling that you please, but it is our duty, as far as possible, to safeguard what we consider our rights, and I very respectfully suggest to you that, in a matter of this kind, it is not the length of an hon. Member's argument that is at stake: it is whether the argument he is putting forward is relevant, and in order as a matter of relevancy to the subject under discussion. It is that which I rose to put to you just now.

The CHAIRMAN: Again, as I have had to say to the right hon. Gentleman before, I do not think that there is any quarrel between the principle he enunciates and any Ruling which I have given. I entirely agree that certain arguments are in order, but, as I said just now, I must ask him to allow the Chair discretion as to the extent to which an argument may be allowed to wander into a discussion which really does not apply any longer to the particular Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. A. BEVAN: It was not my intention when I addressed the Committee in the terms in which I addressed it, to contravene the Ruling of the Chair, but I understood that a general discussion upon the legitimacy, in the present circumstances, of a form of indirect taxation would be permissible under the Amendment which has been moved. It is not, however, necessary for me to broaden the discussion at all, but simply to point out that the tax which the Committee is, at the moment, being asked to authorise a a tax which, in addition to many other things the Government have done, will have the effect of impoverishing the poorer classes of the community. The
argument was advanced by the Financial Secretary, when this matter was last discussed in the House, that this tax was admissible, first because it was only a little one. Each successive piece of taxation has been justified in turn by reference to the same argument. His next argument was that the tax is permissible because the fall in prices has increased the real value of wages, and that even with this additional tax, and with the other additional taxes which the Government have put on, the purchasing power of real wages will still be higher than it was before the Government came in.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, does not remember the deputation which attended upon him from the Film Distributive Association. When they pointed out to him that a certain tax, which is irrelevant to the present discussion, had an effect upon the revenues of the trade, he said, "You have no right to suppose that this tax has been responsible for a fall in your revenue. Rather it is the other taxes, and also the wage reductions which are now occurring all over the country." Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his making a statement of that kind when his Government are now putting additional burdens on the shoulders of the poor, and wage reductions are taking place from John o'Groat's to Land's End? The consequence will be that before the present Government are many years older, they will have succeeded in transferring a very considerable burden on to the shoulders of the poor people of this country. It is to that piece of cynical callousness that we are directing our opposition to-day, and to which we shall continue to direct it. If hon. and right hon. Members, influenced as they undoubtedly are by the fact that the Government are a new Government and that the Parliament is a new Parliament, can really laugh at protests of this description from this side, then we shall simply have to wait a little longer, and Nemesis will overtake them.
I have been frankly astonished that the Government should have taken this step at the present time, because if the Government have a mandate for anything, it is not a mandate for this. The last election, if it was fought upon anything at all, was fought upon this prin-
ciple, that in the national crisis the national burden should be equally distributed over the various classes of the community. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is!"] I can only refer the hon. Member to the language of the right hon. Member in charge of this Bill at the present time. He described another statement about Super-tax as clap-trap. I simply ask him to assist by giving me a few adjectives in which to describe the hon. Member's interruption. The National Government, I say, were elected on that principle, and on that principle alone. They have no mandate from the country to take advantage of the first budgetary opportunity to unload some of the burden of the crisis upon the poorer members of the community, as is being done now. Because it is done only to the extent of £4,100,000 is no reason why we should let it pass without protest here. Indeed, we have been told from many quarters that this is simply the beginning of a process which is going to develop in the next six or nine months.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given us a remarkable piece of logic in connection with this matter. I would like to commend it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary as a part of the answer to the speech he made in my part of the country at the week-end. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the Budget speech, said that the limit of taxation had been reached, that it was quite impracticable to add to the burden of taxation without the additional burden having serious consequences on the total volume of employment in the country. He went on to say that the Income Tax paying classes had been gravely impoverished by the additional taxes under Lord Snowden's economy Budget. Yet because the Income Tax paying members of the community are too poor to pay additional taxes, we are now informed that additional taxes can easily be paid by those classes of the community below the Income Tax level. The proposition to which we are invited to subscribe is, that because a man whose income comes within the Income Tax is too poor to pay any more, a man who is so poor that he pays no Income Tax at all is rich enough to pay additional taxation. A more absurd, more cynical, more
stupid proposition no body of persons ever listened to. That is the whole proposition of the Front Bench in supporting this form of taxation.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: That is your interpretation.

Mr. BEVAN: I put it in the most frugal language. It is not abstruse or complicated; it is simple enough even for the hon. Member to follow clearly. We are informed here that the poor Income Tax payer is so impoverished, is in such dire straits, that we must bring the unemployed to his rescue, the man who is having 15s. 3d. a week. In my own district unemployment is reaching from 50 to 75 per cent. of the population. The proposition which the Committee is now being asked to consider is that these people must come to the rescue of the Super-tax payer and the Income Tax payer, and that people in towns and villages, living upon incomes of less than 25s. a week on the average, must pay dearer for tea in order to save a further burden upon the Income Tax paying members of the community.
That is the proposition which this Committee has to consider, and not the complicated proposition as to whether this is Imperial Preference or not. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite are only too pleased to get away from the relevance of the situation to some discussion about Imperial tariffs and things of that kind; but, progressively from now onwards, this House will have its nose kept to this proposition, that the crisis into which this country has been got as a consequence of incompetent banking— [Interruption.] I have not said that; it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Billhead who said it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping has also said it; and the Lord Privy Seal, too, has said that the crisis into which this country has come, owing to incompetent banking, must, as a consequence of unscrupulous political electioneering, be unloaded on to the shoulders of the poorer people of this country by putting a tax on working people's tea. It is said that, after all, it is a very small tax that these people have to pay—that it is only £4,100,000, and that it is only on tea. If it were on beer, the House
would be packed, and there would be lobbying outside. Why is that? Because tea is not produced in Great Britain, but beer is, and we have Members in the House who represent beer. That is the reason why there would be a row over beer. There is not so much row over tea, because no one in the House brews it, or makes it, or grows it, except, perhaps, a few returned tea planters who have come here to argue on behalf of their colleagues overseas.
I am estopped, I understand, from arguing on the general question of direct or indirect taxation in connection with this proposal, but, if this rake's progress continues, and if the spending power of the masses, which is the only thing that is saving the country from economic catastrophe at the present time —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen say "Oh," but, if you reduce the purchasing power of the masses, you must effectively destroy the only market that is left. If you continue this rake's progress, you will not succeed in doing what you are trying to do; you will not succeed ultimately in relieving the burden of the rich at the expense of the poor; but you will simply impoverish the poor more, and the result will be the greater impoverishment of the rich because they will be rendered bankrupt as a consequence of their politics destroying the economic foundations upon which commerce and industry depend.
Therefore, I submit this Amendment to the Committee in the hope that at least some supporters of the Government will vote for it. There are the National Labour representatives, who have joined the Government to save Socialism. Surely they will be found in our Lobby on this occasion, because they went into the National Government, we are told, in order to save the working classes from the unfettered brutality of the Tories. We are told that, if the National Labour representatives had not joined the National Government, we should have been bound hand and foot and handed over to the Philistines. To save us from that dread calamity they joined the National Government, and we therefore assume that all the National Labour representatives will crowd into our Lobby on this occasion and support our Amendment. Surely, if there were any proposal on which they would support us,
it would be this proposal to prevent a tax upon working people's tea. Perhaps, however, they will not be able to see their way clear on this occasion again; perhaps their loyalty to the National Government will override their loyalty to the working-class people whom they deceived at the last election.
I am sure, however, that the Liberal Members will vote for us. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) will vote for us. I have no hope of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade doing so. He does not belong to the Radical section of the Liberal party at all; he belongs to those who are gradually merging into the Tory party. But those with Radical pretentions, who, unless they are to die spiritually, must look forward to some political affiliations with the Left, must surely see that this is a question upon which they must vote with us or be swept back towards the Right, when it will be much more difficult for them to retrace their steps towards the Left in the future. I therefore submit that the proposal contained in this Amendment, small though it may be in its financial incidence, represents the fundamental cleavage between the parties in the House on the question whether the burden of maintaining the structure of the State in a time of difficulty is to be borne by the poor people, or whether it is to be borne by those whose maladministration has brought the State into this situation.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: The Amendment which has been proposed is satisfactory to the extent that it accepts the imposition of a duty, and seeks only to reduce the amount of the duty; and it accepts, apparently, the principle of a 50 per cent. preference in favour of Indian tea. Thirty years ago, the import duty on Lancashire piece goods imported into India was 3½ per cent., and the importation of British yarns into India was free. There was then in force in India an excise duty on locally manufactured cotton goods. To-day, the duty on the same British cotton piece goods is 25 per cent., and there is a preference in favour of British-made piece goods of 6 per cent. The preference which is being provided to-day in favour of Empire tea is 50 per cent. In view of our present financial circumstances and needs, I would have
supported a duty on tea of even 8d. per pound, and, in view of the distressed state of the Indian tea industry, I would that it had been feasible to give Indian tea a preference of 100 per cent.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that I have already ruled that we cannot discuss the question of Imperial preference on this Amendment.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: The point that I was wishing to make was that any recovery in the tea industry in India and Ceylon will naturally have beneficial repercussions on certain industries in this country. I think it will be appreciated that putting a duty on tea and giving a preference in favour of Indian tea will give an advantage to certain industries in this country which manufacture machinery, implements and tools employed in the tea industry in India, but there is another side of the question which I consider it my duty, as representing a Lancashire constituency, to place before my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. While we acknowledge the need for assisting our friends and our Dependencies, we have also, surely, to remember industrial conditions at home.
It is argued, and it is a widespread fallacy, that Indian politicians are not interested in questions appertaining to tea, because tea is said to be a purely British industry, and perhaps because it has been built up and maintained by British foresight and British capital; but I would draw attention to another aspect which has a bearing on the fiscal side of this question, and also on the economic side, in relation to our own industrial disabilities. While the greater proportion of the capital invested in tea in India is British, it is not sufficiently appreciated that native Indian trading interests have a very definite stake in the industry of, I venture to assert, a capitalised value equal to the British money invested in tea in India. I wish to emphasise the fact that, quite apart from the question of the employment afforded to hundreds of thousands of workers in tea gardens in Assam, Indians have a definite financial interest in the prosperity of the industry, and the question of labour also is of immense economic importance.
I should like to explain that almost the entire labour forces employed in the tea gardens of Assam are foreigners to Assam.
Without these foreign immigrant labour forces, Assam would be a bankrupt province. The railways and the vast river transport services all over Assam depend almost entirely on tea. Employment is afforded to thousands of Indians, who, again, are as much foreigners to Assam as a Rumanian would be in London, on the railways, in the river transport services, and the telegraph and postal services, and the tea industry itself is a very important factor in all this. It may be said that these simple people have no political or financial stake or interest in the industry, but I would explain that the movement and control of local capital and money in Assam, and, indeed a very large proportion of the internal and, excluding tea, the external trade of Assam, is in the hands of a very well-known trading race, who come mostly from Mar-war, in Rajputana, 1,200 or 1,400 miles away—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this is another case in which I must restrain the hon. Member.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: The point to which I was coming is one which I venture to suggest, in all humility, has never been fully appreciated in this country, even by the Government of the day. It was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping in the opening words of his speech of the Budget. I also should have preferred that any preference that we gave to Indian tea should have been retained for use as a bargaining counter, and I trust that, if any further preferences are to be extended to India, the possibility of friendly fiscal bargaining will not be lost sight of. As representing a Lancashire constituency, I should have preferred to be able to say to all the business communities of India, whether British or Indian, that we should be glad to give every possible preference to goods of theirs which come to this country, and not only to this country, but to our Dominions and Colonies, provided that they also afforded us similar reciprocal preferential treatment. I trust that the Secretary of State for the Dominions will appreciate this point when he goes to Ottawa. It can be done, provided that preferences are not given to India, and that no Protectionist policy against Lancashire piece goods, is permitted by us in India, purely for pur-
poses of political placation. It is within the power of the House of Commons, not only to protest, but to refuse to sanction indiscriminate duties, or, indeed any duties at all, aimed at or imposed to the prejudice of this or any other country—

The CHAIRMAN: I must again ask the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the Committee.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. KIRKPATRICK: I should have like to see my right hon. Friend, before discriminating in favour of Indian and Ceylon tea, explore every opportunity of securing some tangible benefits for the industries of this country. My own friends in Preston can, Heaven knows, make out as good a case for generous consideration in regard to preference and financial support as any other industry in any part of the British Empire, and I would like an. assurance from my right hon. Friend that he appreciates this point, and that, if it is too late now, he will continue to bear it in mind, if the question of the imposition of any further Tea Duty arises. I hope that in future, if it is a question of arranging any preference in favour of India, we shall appreciate the possibility of making reciprocal fiscal arrangements.

Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) made some remark about the vast amount of cheap money that prevails to-day. That is rather an indication of bad trade and of distress than of affluence.

Mr. BEVAN: I certainly did not intend to convey the impression that the presence of gold was evidence of prosperity. It is evidence of the fact that there are not sufficient credit-worthy people in the world to borrow money.

Mr. MASON: I am glad the hon. Member agrees with me that this is evidence rather of poverty and distress. In regard to the Amendment, I agree with what has been said as to the very heavy burden which the Tea Duty places upon the poorest in the land.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will the hon. Member give some indication of the extra burden of this 4d.?

Mr. MASON: The tax brings in £4,100,000, which is drawn from the
general community. It is a very heavy tax and it presses most on the very poor. The old age pensioner is very much more heavily taxed, in proportion, than other sections of the community. The tax touches a class of people who are often unable to defend themselves, who are scattered all over the land and are represented by Conservatives, Liberals and Labour, and it should be imposed only in the last resort. I may be asked what I have to offer as an alternative, but we are not framing the Budget, and I do not think we are called upon to say what our proposals would be. Our business, surely, is to offer such criticism as we think fair and right with regard to the taxes that are before us. But, on the general principle, one might say that through greater economy in administration we might be able to reduce all taxes. The burden of taxation to-day is very heavy and presses hard upon all classes of the community. The Tea Duty presses most hardly upon those who are least able to bear it. It is not a fair burden in the sense that is not divided nor proportionately graded upon the shoulders best able to bear it, and, because I believe it to be a severe and an unfair tax, I support the Amendment.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) talked about incompetent bankers. My right hon. Friend used no such expression. It is true he said something in criticism of the present system of public finance, but he made it clear that he was laying no blame either on the Bank of England or on the banking institutions of the country, and it is most unfair to charge him with making a statement which he did not make.

Mr. BEVAN: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said bankers were incompetent and I do not think I said he did. But he did more. He proved it.

Mr. HANNON: That does not get rid of the very misleading interpretation placed by the hon. Member on my right hon. Friend's speech. This Amendment brings to the notice of the whole country the serious disproportion that obtains between direct and indirect taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made it plain in his Budget speech that the burden of direct taxation is out of all
proportion to the measure of indirect taxation. No nation under the sun bears the same volume of direct taxation that is borne by this country, and the time has come when some more equitable relationship must be established between direct and indirect taxation. This is an attempt really to bring into a more favourable and just relationship the two sections of our system of public finance. If the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench, who has, no doubt, given careful thought to these delicate questions, could mention any other country under the sun whose industries are burdened to the same extent by direct taxation, there would be some reason in bringing the Amendment forward. I wish we had proposed a tax of 8d. instead of 4d. I very much hope that the Amendment will be rejected and that we shall make it clear that we are determined to bring into proper relationship the burden borne by the direct in contradistinction to the indirect taxpayer.

Mr. McENTEE: I wish to say a few words in regard to the subject that has been the main theme of all the speeches that have been made so far—the question of direct and indirect taxation. While the speakers have been on their feet, some of the statements that have been made from time to time by right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench have been passing through my mind. I remember in the early days of this Government the Prime Minister pointing out that there were other ways of reducing wages than a direct cut, and that they could be reduced by tariffs and by taxation. I could not help wondering while I have been listening to the speeches to-day whether the Prime Minister's statement on that occasion did not go back to the Cabinet and influence them considerably in regard to their general policy of taxation and finance. It is certainly remarkable that that statement of the Prime Minister is actually working out in practice so far as the financial policy of the Government is concerned. Not only have wages been reduced by direct cuts but the other two methods are being adopted. This tax on tea is one of them. It is only a small matter of £4,100,000 which, spread over the whole community, is not going to hit anyone very hard, but I think the Financial Secretary would admit—he would certainly argue it if he were on this side of
the House instead of on that—that it hits certain people harder than others and, because it does that, it is certainly not in keeping with the pledges made during the last election. This, in conjunction with the many other small taxes which have been and are being imposed, hitting as they do poor people far more heavily than those who are better off, is entirely in keeping with the reasons that were given at that time why a general election was necessary and why a National Government was necessary.
Then I remember speeches made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer making it clear that he was sorry that it was not in his power to reduce Income Tax but indicating that he was looking forward to the time when it would be possible to make a reduction. If I were Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I certainly never shall be, and held the views that have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I should have to look round to find means to make good the pledges that I had given to reduce the Income Tax. Judging from his more recent speeches, he is not finding it quite so easy to get money from tariffs as he hoped and, consequently, he is now seeking means of shifting taxation from what we know as the direct to what we know as the indirect method. Naturally, the larger the sum he can get from indirect methods of taxation the larger will be the sum he will have available to reduce the direct method of taxation. It appears obvious from his speeches that that is his intention, and it is against that intention that we on this side of the Committee are making our protest.
We were told by an hon. Gentleman opposite that he was very glad indeed that the indirect method of taxation was being adopted, because, he said, it makes it clear to the poor that they are being taxed, whereas, if taxes are paid in a direct way, in the form of Income Tax for instance, and if as a result a large number of people are thrown out of work, they will not be able to see the cause of their being thrown out of work. The tax which is being imposed now, being an indirect tax, falls in the largest proportion upon people who are really unable to pay any tax at all. As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan),
these people are so far below the Income Tax level that they are not considered at all from the point of view of paying Income Tax. Therefore, one may assume, their income being so small that they cannot be called upon to pay Income Tax, that they will be hit equally hard by any other form of tax. It does not matter whether it is a tax on tea, or upon income, or whatever it may be, it has to be paid. We on this side of the Committee are concerned with the question of who is to pay the tax.
I do not think that it will be possible for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with all the assistance at his disposal, to say exactly what proportion of the tax will be paid by what we call the lower-paid workers, and what proportion will be paid by the middle-class and the upper-class people. I think that it will generally be admitted by all sections of the Committee that the great bulk of the people of this country are lower-paid workers, and consequently the great bulk of the tax will fall upon them. They will have to pay the great bulk of the tax. The object of the tax is to get revenue apparently. Revenue for what purpose? I can only take the speeches made from time to time by right hon. Gentlemen opposite indicating the policy of His Majesty's Government and make my own deductions as to the object they have in view. Frankly I have been forced to the conclusion that the main object in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in imposing this tax is to get as much money as possible from the people in the community who are the least able to pay—the poor—so that ultimately he may be able to make good the promise he has made to the Income Tax payers that a reduction will be made in the Income Tax as early as possible.
We are justified in making our protest on moral grounds. The poor are already overtaxed, and they are unable to meet the lowered standard at which Income Tax becomes payable to-day. They are being taxed in another but very subtle way which hits them as hard as if a direct tax were imposed upon them. If a man has £2 or £2 10s. per week what on earth difference does it make to him whether you call it Income Tax, a tariff on something he has to buy, a tax on tea, or a quota for wheat? The fact remains that
he has to pay higher prices for the goods he has to purchase and the consequence is that he has a lower purchasing power. If a man has a lower purchasing power what happens? He buys less goods and as a result the people from whom he purchases the goods will require less stock than previously. Inevitably they will reduce their orders to the manufacturers or the shippers. Thus, the purchasing power of the people being reduced, the market will be restricted and men will be thrown out of work. I submit that that is not the way to bring about a general increase in trade but rather the way to do the opposite.
The hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) is very concerned about his friends the bankers. If he wants the case against the bankers he will find it in the Macmillan Report. He need not have referred to any spech made by an hon. Member in the Committee to-day. I presume that he knows something of what is known in the banking world as window dressing. I suppose that he is aware of the fact that one bank passes on its funds week after week to another bank, the balance-sheet of which shows money which has previously been submitted by another bank. The banks pass on the same money, and it is accounted for over and over again. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, it is. Look at the Macmillan Report.

Mr. HANNON: The Macmillan Report makes no charge of that kind against the bankers of this country. The Macmillan Report deals with the banking situation in relation to our public finances. There is no charge against bankers of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McENTEE: I did not use the word "charge" at all, and the Macmillan Report is not likely to use the word "charge." The Macmillan Report is drawn up by a number of people some of whom were bankers, and bankers are hardly likely to make charges against themselves. But they did say that the money was used over and over again for the purpose of showing a larger balance than the banks actually possessed. Although it did not make any charge against the bankers, the Macmillan Report definitely stated that that was a policy which ought not to be adopted, was not in the best interests of the
people, and was not creditable to the bankers themselves. If the hon. Member has read the report, I advise him to read it again, and, if he has not read it, I advise him to read it. Window dressing is definitely referred to, and, although the report does not make charges, it says that such matters ought to be discontinued. That is as far as one can expect the report to go, considering that it was drawn up by a body consisting to some extent of bankers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Moseley introduced the subject. The fact remains that the Tea Duty of 4d. is a tax in the main upon the poor people. It is one of a great number of taxes which are being imposed upon them by the present Government. There is the long list of articles on which tariffs are to be imposed. A tariff is a tax, and, if a tax is imposed by a British Government, it can only be imposed upon British people.

Mr. HANNON: Surely the tax we are dealing with now is as to whether there shall be 4d. or 2d. on tea, and is it in order for all this loose discussion to take place?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must allow me to decide whether the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) is in order.

Mr. McENTEE: The last hon. Member to make any criticism of my wandering should be the hon. Member for Moseley, because in the short speech which he delivered he wandered far more from the straight path than any other Member who has spoken to-day. We are told that this is only a small tax. It is one of a large number of small taxes which in bulk represent a very considerable reduction in the wages of the working class generally. It is entirely in keeping with the speech which the Prime Minister made in the House in the early days of the present Government when ho indicated that there were other ways of reducing wages besides a direct cut. All these small bits, a farthing knocked off here and a halfpenny knocked off there, probably mean a reduction of anything from 1s. to 4s. in the weekly wage of the working classes.
5.0 p.m.
We took off the Tea Duty amid the plaudits of almost everybody in the House, including, I think, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who thought it was a very fine thing. Everybody thought that it was a fine thing that the tax should be removed for ever, particularly the Members of the Liberal party. My political memory goes back something like 40 years, and all that time the Liberal party have been talking about the free breakfast table. Some Liberal Members on the Front Bench opposite, if they recalled some of their early speeches on tea and other things, would find that they had supported the policy contained in the Amendment. We are only pointing out what humbugs they are. We are telling them that when they go to the public and talk about their intentions in regard to the free breakfast table they are talking with their tongues in their cheeks with the object of deceiving the public, as they did at the last election. No one dare have said, "If we go back, we intend to impose a tax upon tea and to do away with direct taxation, and impose instead indirect taxation." No one dare have said that it would be the definite policy of the National Government to alter the whole system of taxation, and, as far as possible, do away with direct taxation and, as far as possible, impose indirect taxation. No one dare have said, "We are going to do all these things with one object in view—to help our friends, the people who finance our political party funds." After all, those are the people who give you large donations. They do not give donations because of the colour of your eyes or anything like that, but because they know, in the words of a late Noble Lord, "You are looking after your friends." Your friends, of course, are the people who look after you when your political party funds need replenishing. I will not go further into that matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] You know it is true, and you do not like it because it is true. If there is any dispute about it, I invite you to produce some of your balance sheets.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that he had better address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr. McENTEE: I am sorry that I strayed along that road, but it is a road that rather attracts me, and I know that hon. and right hon. Members opposite
do not like to see me go along that road. If they will produce a balance sheet they can disprove, if it is possible to do so, the statement that I have made. I make my definite protest against this system. Of course, we shall get nothing. Hon. Members opposite will vote us down. People will come into the House, knowing nothing about the subject of Debate, and they will go into this Lobby or that Lobby according to the instructions of the Whips. Indeed, unless they read the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT or in the Press they will not know whether they have voted for or against a reduction in the Tea Duty. But we know, and we make our protest against it. This Amendment is part of our party policy and we support it because it is the right and moral thing to do. We believe that the party opposite are deliberately attempting to shift the burden of taxation from the people who are best able to bear it, and placing it upon those who are the least able to bear it.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure that the Chief Whip will be pleased to hear that everyone will vote exactly as they are told when they see the Whips. It seems very difficult to keep in order on this Amendment, and I might be tempted to stray outside the realms of order, because the discussion to some extent turns on the question of indirect taxation. I do not intend to be drawn into that discussion, save to say that the arguments that have been used from the benches opposite would justify the sweeping away of all indirect taxation. I am sure that everyone will agree that that is not a matter of practical politics at the present time. The Amendment would mean a loss this year of £1,000,000 or more to the revenue, and in a full year the loss would be £2,000,000. We cannot afford that. We have not the money to make this remission, and it is not in our power to do so. For these reasons, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The reply of the Financial Secretary seems extraordinarily inadequate and extremely unsatisfactory, the reason being that this is a tax which it is impossible for any sensible man to support. Therefore, the Financial Secretary has taken the wise course of not trying to support it. The few remarks which he did address to the Committee were not extremely strong as
regards direct and indirect taxation. It is not a question of taking off indirect taxation. It is a question of imposing a new burden. The question is upon whom that burden shall be imposed. Shall it or shall it not be imposed upon the tea drinkers? The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) said he did not mind having a duty of 8d. on tea, but the hon. Member is not one whom the Committee would consider primarily as a tea drinker. I do not think the 8d. duty would affect him very seriously, if he would compare him-self with an unemployed man, whose family very largely depend for their drink upon tea. The problem is whether that class of person should bear this extra burden, which we are told will produce £l,000,000 in the current year, or whether that extra £1,000,000 could be borne by someone else more equitably. That is the problem which the Committee has to face. I am sure that the hon. Member for the Moseley Division would, in his charitable outlook upon life, be convinced, if he thought the matter out, that if £1,000,000 has to be found the people who drink tea in large quantities are not the best people to find it.

Mr. HANNON: So long as they were drinking Empire tea I would let them drink all the tea they possibly could.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Member agrees with me that the tea drinker should not be taxed as a tea drinker.

He shakes his head. Therefore, he is in complete agreement. Unlike the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he believes that the tea drinker is not the person who should have this extra burden cast upon him. The hon. Member desires this Tea Duty to be used as a method of bringing about preferential tariffs for Colonial and Indian teas, but that is a matter which I cannot discuss now. The problem raised in the Amendment is whether this extra money should be found by charging the poorest people with a new indirect tax, or whether it should be found in other ways. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division is in agreement with us on this point, as I have no doubt other hon. Members are. I am convinced that if it were not for the stern eyes of the Government Whips we should in this case have a majority in the Lobby, because no thinking man, however great the crisis may be, can honestly say that the direct taxpayers of this country cannot find another £1,000,000 to meet the crisis, and that it is necessary to relieve them of finding that extra £1,000,000 in order that-it may be found by the very poorest people in the community. For these reasons, we shall certainly go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'four-pence' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 37.

Division No. 186.]
AYES.
[5.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut,-Colonel
Burnett, John George
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Cranborne, Viscount


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Carver, Major William H.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Davison, Sir William Henry


Bateman, A. L.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Beauchamp. Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Denville, Alfred


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (portsm'th, C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Dickie, John P.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Donner, P. W.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A.(Birm., W)
Doran, Edward


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Blindell, James
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Duggan, Hubert John


Bossom, A. C.
Chotzner, Alfred James
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Clarke, Frank
Dunglass, Lord


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Clayton. Or. George C.
Ednam, Viscount


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Eillston, Captain George Sampson


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colville, John
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Conant, R. J. E.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cook, Thomas A.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Brown, Brig-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Cooke, Douglas
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Buchan, John
Cooper, A. Duff
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Falle, sir Bertram G.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Robinson, John Roland


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Rosbotham, S. T.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Ross, Ronald D.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr'n)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lockwnod. John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rothschild, James A.. de


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Runge, Norah Cecil


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lymington, Viscount
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Gluckstein, Louis Halie
Mabane, William
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Goldle, Noel B.
McCorquodale, M.. S.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Savery, Samuel Servington


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Scone, Lord


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McKie, John Hamilton
Selley, Harry R.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grimston, R. V.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Magnay, Thomas
Slater, John


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Maitland, Adam
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hales, Harold K.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Margesson, Capt. Henry David H.
Smithers, Waldron


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sotheron-Esteourt, Captain T. E.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Meller, Richard James
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H..


Harris, Sir Percy
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Hartland, George A.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stevenson, James


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Stones, James


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Strauss, Edward A.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitcheson, G. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Summersby, Charles H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Templeton, William P.


Hopkinson, Austin
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Munro, Patrick
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hornby, Frank
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Horsbru'gh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. w. G. (Petersf' ld)
Vaughan-Morgan, sir Kenyon


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
North, Captain Edward T.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hurst Sir Gerald B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(Montr'se)
Patrick, Colin M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pearson, William G.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C)
Peat, Charles U.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jamieson, Douglas
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Weymouth, Viscount


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Petherick, M.
White, Henry Graham


Ker, J. Campbell
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon. S.)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Potter, John
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Withers, Sir John James


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Womersley, Walter James


Law, Sir Alfred
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Leckie, J. A.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Lees-Jones, John
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, Eleanor



Levy, Thomas
Ray, Sir William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lewis, Oswald
Rea, Walter Russell
Sir George Penny and Mr.


Liddall, Walter S.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Shakespeare.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Price, Gabriel


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Janner, Barnett
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.

Mr. RHYS DAV1ES: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (2).
I am moving the deletion of this Subsection in order to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity of clearing away a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the precise meaning of the Sub-section itself. In order that the Committee may understand the position I will read the Subsection:
An excise duty at the rate of twopence the pound shall be payable on tea which was imported into the United Kingdom before the twentieth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, and was on that date in the ownership or possession of any person who then held more than one thousand pounds thereof, but not including any such tea which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been intended for use by the person in whose ownership or possession it was and not to have been intended for sale or for use in the preparation of a beverage for sale.
There is as stated a great deal of ambiguity about the meaning of the Sub-section. I have made inquiries during the holidays from traders in order to find out whether they really understand it. I have also consulted certain legal gentlemen of my acquaintance, but they cannot understand what it means; and if members of the legal profession cannot, how is an ordinary layman like myself to understand it? Indeed, how can the ordinary trader who knows nothing about the law as a rule understand it, or the ordinary tea merchant who deals in nothing else but tea? When the House dealt with this question last the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) moved an Amendment to this effect:
In the operation of this paragraph where any person holds more than one thousands pounds of such tea the duty shall not be payable in respect of the first one thousand pounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 36th April, 1932; col. 289, Vol. 265].
I have read carefully the reply of the Financial Secretary on that occasion and, although the right hon. and gallant Member comes from across the Border where they are supposed to be more intelligent than we are on this side, I have completely failed to understand what he actually meant by some of the statements which he, then made. If there is so much ambiguity about this Sub-section it is necessary that it should be cleared up to-day. The problem arises in this way. For illustration, I belong to a co-operative
society which has about 65,000 members. Everything that co-operative societies do is open and above board, unlike capitalist firms. The society had on this date about 70,000 lbs. of tea. It has 80 branches selling groceries. If that amount of tea, 70,000 lbs. was divided between the 80 branches of the society it would mean, if the Sub-section is read as some people read it, that the society would pay no duty at all. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government. I should imagine that the Government being so generously disposed towards the co-operative movement might take that view in their case, but that it would not apply the same interpretation in the case of private firms. Indeed, the Government might be so disposed to the co-operative movement that they are prepared to allow them to arrange their tea business in their own way.
I want to ask the Financial Secretary a categorical question. Will he tell us in respect of a firm such as I have mentioned with 70,000 lbs. of tea and 80 separate establishments selling it, whether that firm will pay a duty on 69,000 lbs. of tea, or is it to be let off the duty on the whole of the 70,000 lbs., or am I right in assuming that as it possessed on that date 70,000 lbs. of tea it would pay duty on the 69,000 lbs. of tea—the first 1,000 lbs. of tea being immune from duty-irrespective of the fact that the whole of that 70,000 lbs. of tea was divided amongst its 80 separate branches? There is in the co-operative movement what is known as the English Co-operative Wholesale Society and also the Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society. I should like to know whether these two societies arc to be regarded as one for this purpose although they are, in fact, separate and distinct organisations. Those are two questions which interest the co-operative movement, and being a co-operator myself I shall be interested in the reply of the Financial Secretary. In order to show that the issue is not clear I will read what the right hon. and gallant Member said on the last occasion.
The duty which is levied on existing stocks is not 4d., but 2d., and the amount of duty involved in the individual case for 1,000 lbs. of tea is not more than £8 6s. 8d. That is the only sum which is at stake in this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1932; col. 293, Vol. 265.]
The difference in the attitude of hon. Members opposite and of hon. Members on this side of the House is very definite. To them £8 6s. 8d. is only a small matter, not very much, but it means a great deal to some small struggling co-operative society. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite should understand a little more about this great democratic movement which has been built up in our industrial districts on the small savings of working people. The Financial Secretary ought to tell us exactly what this duty really means. There are two problems. If a tea merchant held on that date 999 lbs. of tea, am I to take it that he will pay no duty at all? If he holds 1,001 lbs. of tea on that day will he pay the duty on 1 lb. of tea, that is 2d., or will he pay 2d. on the lot? That is a very proper question to ask. Let me show exactly how the Government carries on its business—if any private trader carried on his business in the same way he would very soon be in the bankruptcy court. The Treasury is supposed to be a very correct Department. I have here a notice sent out to tea merchants and this is what it says. It is worth while getting down to the details of this problem because I can assure hon. Members that some traders do not know what this means even yet. This is what the notice says:
A Resolution passed by Committee of Ways and Means in the House of Commons on the 19th April, 1932, provides for the imposition of an Excise Duty at the rate of twopence per pound on tea, which, on the 20th April, 1932, is in the ownership or possession of any person who holds more than 1,000 lbs. thereof, but not including any such tea which is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to have been intended for use by the person in whose ownership or possession it was and not to have been intended for sale or for use in the preparation of a beverage for sale.
5.30 p.m.
The wording is much the same as in the Finance Bill, but I have taken the trouble to scrutinise it and I find that there is a difference in parts which is fundamental. This notice speaks of "a person." I want to know before we part with this Amendment whether "a person" means an ordinary tea merchant who runs a business on his own or a huge multiple firm which, say, sells approximately one-sixth of the tea sold in this country? Does such a company as that come under the meaning of the word
"person"? Is a co-operative society a person? Is the Co-operative Wholesale Society a person? In the case of the Co-operative Wholesale Society some legal explanation would be necessary to make that huge body into a person. A retail co-operative society is made up of individual members, but the Co-operative Wholesale Society is an aggregation of a variety of affiliated retail societies. Let me proceed a stage further with this very difficult problem. Happily there is a Scotsman sitting on the Treasury Bench and a Welshman speaking, and we may as a result get some light on the subject. Here is a second point in the notice:
All duties applicable in respect of the aggregate stocks of tea which on 20th April, 1932, are in the ownership or possession of any person, firm or institution.
Suppose that a tea merchant had ordered from a wholesaler 2,000 lbs. of tea, and that tea had reached his warehouse. Is the tea in the warehouse, though not paid for, in the possession and ownership of the retail tea merchant? That is a very important point. A great deal of the trade of this country is done on credit. Is the wholesaler to pay the duty on the tea that has reached the warehouse of the retailer, or is the retailer liable merely because the tea is in his warehouse, although it is not paid for? It would be extraordinary if the retailer had to pay 2d. duty on tea for which he had not paid anything to the wholesaler. It might in some cases never be paid for at all, of course. It is a point that wants to be cleared up. Then we come to something else in the notice. The Treasury is very meticulous in some things but very ambiguous when it comes to details about taxation. The notice contains this:
The term 'holding on that day' includes (a) the stocks in hand at midnight on 19th-20th April, 1932; (b) all receipts between that time and midnight 20th-21st April, 1932; and (c) quantities in course of transit within Great Britain.
In the case of tea in transit between one warehouse and another who is to pay the duty on the tea? The person who has already ordered it and not paid for it, or the person who has consigned it, although the tea may not be paid for at all? I do not want to dwell unduly on these details, but the issue of this circular and notice has caused a great deal of appre-
hension among some tea dealers of the country. Let me refer again to the notice:
Under the regulations every person or firm whose stocks are liable to the duty, and every other person, firm or institution upon whom the Commissioners of Customs and Excise call for such a return, is required to furnish, not later than 30th April, 1932, a return in the form numbered C and E, 530, prescribed by the Commissioners. Two copies must accompany the notice.
Take the case of an institution. What kind of institution can there possibly be which will hold more than 1,000 lbs. of tea? I can hardly conceive a hospital holding more than 1,000 lbs. of tea. I should imagine that the Government do not want to make any profit out of institutions. There are charitable institutions, there are municipal institutions and probably there are State institutions. Is it not possible by some means to avoid calling upon charitable institutions to pay for tea in stock on that day? An answer to these questions will clear away some of the difficulties of both the retail and wholesale trade.
Let me say finally that we oppose the Tea Duty. It is not my place here to dwell on that issue, but once the duty is imposed I think the Treasury ought to employ very much clearer language so that we may understand exactly what they mean. Surely there are men at the Treasury who understand the English language better than I do. They ought to reduce this warning and notice to the clearest possible English. Finally, is it possible at all for these notices to be issued in Welsh as well?

Mr. A. BEVAN: Perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will also clear up a point which has been puzzling me. I cannot make up my mind what would be the criterion of calculation, whether it is to be the ownership or the possession of the tea. The phrase used is "ownership or possession." Who is to arbitrate? It may be that the tea is in the ownership of a firm but in the possession of a branch. What is the method of calculation? If it be possession, the tea being distributed amongst many branches, a considerable amount will escape taxation. If it is ownership, then the diffused tea could be taken as one hoard and the Treasury get additional taxation. The Treasury's meaning ought to be made precise and clear. They ought to make up their mind to go for ownership or
possession; they cannot go for both. They cannot in one case say ownership, and in another case say possession. They may say, "In one case we are going for ownership, and in another for possession," but they cannot do that in respect of the same collection of tea. It might happen that some person has taken a bill of sale on a quantity of tea. The lea would be in the possession of the debtor and the ownership might be a matter of litigation. The Bill is a triumph of ambiguity. I ask the Financial Secretary, who is as lucid as he is dexterous, to explain the exact meaning of the Clause.

Major ELLIOT: Hon. Members opposite have access to legal opinion at least as acute as anything possessed by Members in any part of the Committee. I have been asked certain specific questions on the technical points covered by Subsection (2). The hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies) first of all asked if a co-operative society or a body of some kind possessed 70,000 lbs. of tea, it would pay on 69,000 lbs.? No, it would pay on 70,000 lbs. Then he asked about the English and Scottish co-operative wholesale societies, and as to whether they would be taken together or separately. We should inquire and see whether they were in fact separate organisations, and, if they were separate organisations, they would pay separately. It is rather an academic point, because in both cases they would hold more than 1,000 lbs. of tea. Then the hon. Member mentioned the case of the private trader, and asked: If a man holds 999 lbs. of tea, does he pay any duty? The answer is no; he holds less than 1,000 lbs. Then I was asked: If he holds 1,001 lbs. does he pay, and does he pay on 1 lb. or on 1,001 lbs.? He pays, and he pays on 1,001 lbs. and not on 1 lb. It may be said that these are illogical distinctions. The hon. Member will admit that wherever one draws a line in such cases one will have the marginal case and some difficult point arising.
The hon. Member also asked for a definition of a person. He asked: Did a company or a co-operative society come within the definition of a person. I understand that legal opinion holds that an institution or an association or any kind of organisation would be held in such cases to be a person. I was also
asked one or two questions about the possession and ownership of tea, and this point is to be raised in a later Amendment. I should say that if the ownership of the tea had passed the duty also would pass. If the hon. Member says that it is difficult, if not impossible, to work out a system like that, I can only reply that we have a precedent in the case of oil. When the petrol duty was imposed similar exemption was made, and it was found quite possible administratively to work the system. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) asked whether we stand on ownership or on possession, and said that we could not stand on both. He under-estimates the zeal of the Treasury. We shall certainly take whichever definition is most likely to bring in revenue.
I was also asked what kind of institution would hold more than 1,000 lbs. weight of tea. I think it is possible that a large asylum or a large hospital could easily hold more than 1,000 lbs. weight. It was to make sure that such an institution which held tea, not for sale but for making beverage from it, should not be penalised, that we introduced the words dealing with sale. The only point which might arise still as a matter of difficulty is whether the 1,000 lbs. is the most suitable limit to choose. We have the advantage of returns from the majority of the traders in tea in this country, and I am now able to give the Committee some figures which were not available when the Resolution was passed. There are many thousands of small traders who have been completely exempted—that is to say, no request has been made to them for any kind of return. As for the others the figures are as follow. Holding below 500 lbs. there are 2,200 firms or persons.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Is that ownership?

Major ELLIOT: These are people having tea, either in ownership or possession, but they would not be charged. Then below 900 lbs. there are 1,249; below 1,000 lbs., there are another 376 and over 1,000 lbs. there are 3,002. The number caught by the marginal cases to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton referred is only 137. I think it is clear that we have been able to draw a dividing line in this respect which causes the
minimum of hardship to traders and to persons who have stocks of tea, if one realises that out of the whole tea trade of the country covering many millions of pounds weight of tea and many millions of money only 137 cases have arisen where the stocks of tea fall between 1,000 lbs. and 1,100 lbs. It seems to me that in practice we have found a reasonable dividing line, and on that ground I ask the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Where tea is in the possession of a warehousing company but belongs to many individuals, is that tea taken as being owned by the warehouse keeper for the purposes of taxation?

Major ELLIOT: Wherever tea is in the ownership of a certain person—

Sir S. CRIPPS: Ownership or possession?

Major ELLIOT: Well, where it is in the ownership or possession of a certain person, then if that person holds less than 1,000 lbs., duty will not be paid. Storage is not the primary question in those circumstances. I do not wish to attempt to give any legal ruling as to what constitutes ownership. In each individual case that may be a question for investigation. But there is such a thing as ownership—so I am advised by my legal friends—and where ownership exists, and the quantity is less than 1,000 lbs., duty would not be paid.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Does the same thing apply if there is possession of less than 1,000 lbs. of tea?

Major ELLIOT: I do not wish to be led into any legal discussion with my hon. and learned Friend and Member for East Bristol—

Sir S. CRIPPS: It is a question of what the Bill means.

Major ELLIOT: It is but the hon. and learned Member knows that these Measures have to be considered not merely by myself but in conjunction with my expert advisers and he will have plenty of opportunity of acquiring information at the hands of the experts. I shall certainly do my utmost to obtain for him any further information which he desires between now and the Report stage. If he indicates that there is any
particular legal point upon which he washes to have a ruling, I shall do my best between now and then to meet him. But I was dealing as a layman with the question which was put as a layman by the hon. Member for Westhoughton, and I hope it will be possible on what I have already said for the Committee to allow us to have this Sub-section.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: There is one point which the right hon. and gallant Member has not made clear to me. Let me put a concrete case. Let us suppose that on 18th April 5,000 lbs. of tea were sent from London to Aberdeen. On 19th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget and imposed this duty. That consignment of tea was still on its way to Aberdeen on 19th April and even on 20th April. It reached Aberdeen on 21st April. Now the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has answered all my questions very satisfactorily with the ex-

ception of this one. I would like to know from him now who would pay the duty on that 5,000 lbs. of tea—the person who is to receive it but has not yet paid for it, or the person who has sent it from London?

Major ELLIOT: That is a question of ownership. I can certainly conceive of a person in Aberdeen owning a thing which is in London. Such cases are not unknown. I can also imagine a person in Aberdeen demanding that the thing which he owned in London should be sent to him. Such cases also are not unknown. If therefore that person was the owner of that object—if he owned more than 1,000 lbs. of tea, in that case the duty would have to be paid.

Question put, '"That the words proposed to be left out to the word 'before,' in line 7, stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 35.

Division No. 187.]
AYES.
[5.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Ganzonl Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Lt-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Chotzner, Alfred James
Glossop, C. W. H.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarke, Frank
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clarry, Reginald George
Goff. Sir Park


Atkinson, Cyril
Clayton Dr. George C.
Goldie, Noel B.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Graves, Marjorie


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bateman, A. L.
Colville, John
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Conant, R. J. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Cooke, Douglas
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Sevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hales, Harold K.


Blindell, James
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)


Borodale, Viscount
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boulton, W. W.
Cruddas, Lieut. Colonel Bernard
Harris, Sir Percy


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hartland, George A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davison, Sir William Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bracken, Brendan
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Denville, Alfred
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Briscoe Capt Richard George
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Dickle, John P.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmst' d)


Brown, Col. D.C. (N'th'l' d., Hexham)
Donner, P. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Doran, Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brown Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Buchan, John
Duggan, Hubert John
Hopkinson, Austin


Burghley, Lord
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Burnett, John George
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Caine G. R. Hall-
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(Montr'se)


Carver, Major William H.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jamieson, Douglas


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Ker, J. Campbell


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Munro, Patrick
Slater, John


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smithers, Waldron


Law, Sir Alfred
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
North, Captain Edward T.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Leckie, J. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Lees-Jones, John
Patrick, Colin M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Levy, Thomas
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Lewis, Oswald
Peat, Charles U.
Stevenson, James


Liddall, Walter S.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Stones, James


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strauss, Edward A.


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Petherick, M..
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Summersby, Charles H.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Potter, John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)


Lymington, Viscount
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Templeton, William P.


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Mabane, William
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col.C. G.(Partick)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ray, Sir William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rea, Walter Russell
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


McKie, John Hamilton
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Robinson, John Roland
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Magnay, Thomas
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Maitland, Adam
Rosbotham, S. T.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Ross, Ronald D.
Weymouth, Viscount


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
White, Henry Graham


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rothschild, James A. de
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Meller, Richard James
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wise, Alfred R.


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Withers, Sir John James


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Womersley, Walter James


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Scone, Lord
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Selley, Harry R.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)



Moss, Captain H. J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Sir, George Penny and Captain




Austin Hudson.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Janner, Barnett
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Mr. DENMAN: I beg to move, m page 2, line 7, after the word "Kingdom," to insert the words:
after the twenty-second day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, and.
6.0 p.m.
After the interesting Debate which we have had, this is a very small and domestic detail which is raised. The Amendment relates to a very small volume of tea, but a volume which, I am assured,
does exist, namely, tea imported before the last duty was taken off. As the Bill stands, that tea will not only have paid the Import Duty, but will now be called upon to pay Excise Duty as well. That seems to be a harsh procedure, entirely contrary to the nature of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am sure that he will not wish it to be perpetrated in this Bill.

Major ELLIOT: It is quite true that it would be a harsh thing if these stocks were to pay duty on two occasions, but tea imported prior to the removal of the duty was almost all imported in bond, and I think that practically none of the tea still in store was cleared from bond before the duty was remitted, more particularly since the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated beforehand that it was probable that the Tea Duty would be remitted and that traders were consequently not clearing stocks out of bond to pay duty except in the amounts which were actually needed for their current transactions. I am afraid, therefore, it is not possible to accept the Amendment, and I do not think that the stocks of tea to which it could possibly refer are more than a very small quantity. I have made some investigations to see whether such stocks exist, and I have been unable to find any large quantities.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The attitude of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be terribly harsh towards such a very mild Amendment, which the hon. Member has summoned up his courage to bring forward in order to try to temper the wind to the shorn lamb. We feel that we must support him, and we shall go into the Division Lobby with him.

Mr. DENMAN: I am quite satisfied with my right hon. and gallant Friend's reply, and I have no intention whatever of taking up the time of the Committee by going to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 33; Noes, 304.

Division No. 188.]
AYES.
[6.6 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Price, Gabriel


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burghley, Lord
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Burnett, John George
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Cranborne, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Aske, Sir Robert William
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Atkinson, Cyril
Carver, Major William H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cassels, James Dale
Davison, Sir William Henry


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Denville, Alfred


Bateman, A. L.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Dickie, John P.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Donner, P. W.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chlppenham)
Doran, Edward


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Duggan, Hubert John


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Birm., W)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Blindell, James
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Eastwood, John Francis


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter C.


Borodale, Viscount
Chotzner, Alfred James
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Bossom, A. C.
Clarke, Frank
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Essenhigh, Reglnald Clare


Bracken, Brendan
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Colman, N. C. D.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Colville, John
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Conant, R. J. E.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cook, Thomas A.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Hewb'y)
Cooke, Douglas
Fraser, Captain Ian


Buchan, John
Cooper, A. Duff
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ropner, Colonel L.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ross, Ronald D.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Mabane, William
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Rothschild, James A. de


Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Goldie, Noel B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Salmon, Major Isldore


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Grentell, E. C. (City of London)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Savery, Samuel Servington


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Scone, Lord


Grimston, R. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Selley, Harry R.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Maitland, Adam
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Hales, Harold K.
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Slater, John


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Harris, Sir Percy
Meller, Richard James
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hartland, George A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stevenson, James


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stones, James


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Strauss, Edward A.


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hopkinson, Austin
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Munro, Patrick
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Hornby, Frank
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Horsbrugh, Florence
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Tale, Mavis Constance


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Templeton, William P.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
North, Captain Edward T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
O'Connor, Terence James
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.(Montr'se)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hutchison, W. D (Essex, Romford)
Patrick, Colin M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Pearson, William G.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peat, Charles U.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Penny, Sir George
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Jamieson, Douglas
Percy, Lord Eustace
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ker, J. Campbell
Petherick, M.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Pickering, Ernest H.
Weymouth, Viscount


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
White, Henry Graham


Law, Sir Alfred
Potter, John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Law, Richard K (Hull, S. W.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Leckie J. A.
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lees-Jones John
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pybus, Percy John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Levy, Thomas
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wise, Alfred R.


Lewis, Oswald
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Withers, Sir John James


Liddall, Walter S.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Womersley, Walter James


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ray, Sir William
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rea, Walter Russell
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Liewellin, Major John J.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaka)


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.



Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Robinson, John Roland
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward




and Commander Southby.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: In page 2, line 22, after the word "to," to insert the words:
any tea in respect of which excise duty payable under this section has been paid and to."—[Mr. Lawson.]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): Before I call on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), I shall
be glad if I may have an explanation of it, so that I can decide whether I can select it.

Sir S. CRIPPS: We have put down the Amendment because, in its present form, the Clause applies only to blended tea and not to unblended tea which may be exported, which has paid duty, but on which there will be no drawback.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. and learned Member move the Amendment?

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after the word "to," to insert the words:
any tea in respect of which excise duty payable under this section has been paid and to.
The object of the Amendment is to cover what appears to be an oversight on the part of the Treasury and the Government. Sub-section (3) says:
Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1924 (which makes provision for the allowance of drawback on the exportation of certain blended tea) shall (as amended by section twelve of the Finance Act, 1925, which provides that the said section fourteen shall extend to tea shipped as stores) extend to blended tea prepared from teas in respect of which either of the customs duties or the excise duty payable under this section has been paid.
As I understand it, this is really a survival of the old practice. Under the law as it operated formerly, when tea was taken out of bond for the purpose of blending, duty was paid upon it as it was taken out of bond to blend, and the blended tea that was subsequently exported became entitled to a drawback. Owing to the fact that for a number of years there has been no duty upon tea, tea has not been dealt with in bonded warehouses, and the ordinary tea which is re-exported without blending has not gone, as it used to go, into bond without payment of any duty and exported duty free without any necessity for a draw-hack, but has gone into the ordinary open warehouses. The whole of it will, however, now become chargeable to Excise Duty. The unblended tea which is exported from those stocks will have to pay the Excise Duty, and under this Clause will not be able to get any drawback, although a blended tea will be able to get a drawback. It seems that that must be a point which has been entirely overlooked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers, because we are informed that there are very large stocks of tea which are liable to be exported without blending, that is, unblended teas which are at the present time in warehouses and will have to pay the Excise Duty of 2d. There is no provision by which if they are now re-exported they will be able to get any drawback, although if these teas are blended first
and then re-exported, they will, under the terms of this Clause, be entitled to a drawback. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us that he is prepared to accept this Amendment in order to put the unblended teas on the same basis as the blended teas.

Major ELLIOT: I think that I shall be able to meet my hon. and learned Friend, although he will find that is a matter more of administration than of legislation. It is quite accurate, as he says, that while blended teas receive a drawback, unblended teas do not. In this case, however, all these operations for re-export were carried out previously in the bonded warehouses. As soon as the Financial Resolution came into force, we made arrangements by which practically all the warehouses were regarded as warehouses in bond, and bonds were taken upon the stocks in them. We shall be able to deal with the matter without drawbacks simply by deducting the tea which is exported or shipped for stores from the stocks chargeable with duty. Therefore, no duty having been charged, no drawback will require to be given. The tea trade has discussed this matter with the Department, and the arrangements to which we have come meet, I understand, the position as the tea trade put it to us to the satisfaction of the trade. As far as possible, the stocks which are being held in this country will be regarded as bonded stocks; in the case where export is being carried out the teas which are shown to be exported will be deducted from the stocks which are chargeable with the 2d. duty; and if in any case there requires to be an extension beyond the passing of this Bill, as far even as 1st September next, we shall be able administratively to arrange for the extension. Therefore, we shall meet the position, which, I admit, appears to be a hardship, which has been brought forward by the hon. and learned Member. Although we are not doing it legislatively, I think that we are doing it effectively, because it meets with the satisfaction of those in the tea trade who are the persons most interested.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for explaining that the position will be met, but surely it is not very satisfactory to meet it in a way that is contrary to
the terms of the Finance Bill? As I understand the Bill, there is no possible power under it for the Chancellor of the Exchequer or anybody else to exempt any stocks of tea that are in the country on 20th April, 1932. He is bound, under the terms of the Bill, to impose a tax of 2d. on all such stocks, and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not going to suggest that the Customs authorities can snap their fingers at the terms of the Financial Resolution and of the Finance Bill and say, "We shall not charge duty on this tea because it is a hardship on the tea trade; it is not worth altering the Finance Bill or the terms of the Resolution—we will do it by administrative action." We had experience of that from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question of the valuation for the Land Tax, in connection with which he said, "We are not going to alter the provisions; they can wait; but we are not going on with the tax or the valuation."
I must press upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should make some alteration in the Finance Bill, so that the administrative action which he proposes to take, and which seems perfectly satisfactory for the purpose of getting over the difficulty, will be in accordance with the terms of the Finance Bill. What he has stated to the Committee will clearly be outside any powers of anybody under the Finance Bill, and it will be a dereliction of the duties of the Customs and Excise authorities if they fail to collect the 2d. duty unless power is given in the Finance Bill either to allow a drawback or in some other way not to charge the 2d. on those particular stocks to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred. I protest most strongly against the way in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman comes to the Committee and says, "We will see that it is put all right, but it does not matter about altering the law." The law ought to be made to cover the necessary administrative acts, and unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can promise that that will be done at a subsequent stage, we shall have to divide on this Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I am sorry if my hon. and learned Friend divides the Com-
mittee owing to some misapprehension, which, no doubt, is due to my own fault. Surely he does not deny the enormous power of the bonded warehouses and the administrative convenience of the bonded warehouses? No breach of the law is either contemplated or will be accomplishedf—

Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that there were no bonded warehouses for tea on 20th April. The Bill says that everything that was in this country on that date has to be charged 2d. There was nothing at that date in bonded warehouses, and therefore everything must be charged 2d. under the Bill.

Major ELLIOT: It is well known that when you apply a duty the administrative practice of this countary is to place the dutiable article in bond so that it shall not escape the duty. To deny the possibility of that would fetter the Executive to a degree which the hon. and learned Member would not have allowed it to be fettered when he was legal adviser to his Government. The provisions of the bonded warehouses are not at all unfamiliar to the law and practice of this country, and it is in strict accord with the provisions of bond that we are carrying out this administrative convenience. It would be inconvenient to alter the law just because it is desired that a drawback should be given for unblended teas and that the arrangements to meet that position should not be carried out in the bonded warehouses. The less you can hamper the trade of this country the better, and if it is possible to do an action in bond without moving the goods out of bond, paying a duty and putting the goods back again into the export trade, and claiming a drawback—if you can get out of all that by putting the goods in a bonded warehouse and carrying out the operation there, it is not desirable to alter the law in order to facilitate a very complicated operation when it can be done more easily by a simpler operation.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is it a similar process to that obtaining in the case of blending tobacco?

Major ELLIOT: I cannot give an answer off-hand as to the process in blending tobacco. I am confining myself
to the blending of tea, and I hope that I have been able to carry my hon. and learned Friend with me and to convince him that there is no inroad into the sanctity of the law in the administrative steps which we are taking to deal with this matter, and that it is desirable to deal with it administratively and not legislatively because the process of pass-

ing goods in and out again and collecting the duty and claiming the drawback is not a process which it is desirable to encourage.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 36; Noes, 312.

Division No. 189.]
AYES.
[6.29 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Bees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pries, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cove, William G.
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.(Blrm., W)
Glossop, C. W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Albery, Irving James
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Goff, Sir Park


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Chotzner, Alfred James
Goldle, Noel B.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Clarke, Frank
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Clarry, Reginald George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colman, N. C. D.
Grimston, R. V.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Conant, R. J. E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cook, Thomas A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooke, Douglas
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Coopor, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hales, Harold K.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bird Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Harris, Sir Percy


Blindell, James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hartland, George A.


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Davies, Maj. G' O. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Borodale, Viscount
Davison, Sir William Henry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bossom, A. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Boulton, W. W.
Denville, Alfred
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dickie, John P.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Donner, P. W.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Doran, Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Holdsworth, Herbert


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duggan, Hubert John
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hopkinson, Austin


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Eastwood, John Francis
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Burghley, Lord
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Burnett, John George
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Caine, G. R, Hall
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Campbell Johnston, Malcolm
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R. (Montr'se)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Everard, W. Lindsay
Inskip, Rt. Hon Sir Thomas W. H.


Carver, Major William H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Cassels, James Dale
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fox, Sir Gifford
Jamieson, Douglas


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Janner, Barnett


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ker, J. Campbell


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Knebworth, Viscount
Munro, Patrick
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Slater, John


Law, Sir Alfred
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Leckie, J. A.
North, Captain Edward T.
Smithers, Waldron


Lees-Jones, John
O'Connor, Terence James
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Leigh. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Patrick, Colin M.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Levy, Thomas
Pearson, William G.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Lewis, Oswald
Peat, Charles U.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Liddall, Walter S.
Penny, Sir George
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Percy, Lord Eustace
Stevenson, James


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Stones, James


Llewellin, Major John J.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Strauss, Edward A.


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Petherick, M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'ptn, Bilston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Pickering, Ernest H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Potter, John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben
Templeton, William P.


Mabane, William
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Pybus, Percy John
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


McKeag, William
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rathbone, Eleanor
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ray, Sir William
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Rea, Walter Russell
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Magnay, Thomas
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Maitland, Adam
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Robinson, John Roland
Weymouth, Viscount


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
White, Henry Graham


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rosbotham, S. T.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rothschild, James A. de
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Meller, Richard James
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Hamer Field (Shef'ld, B'tside)
Withers, Sir John James


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Womersley, Walter James


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Savery, Samuel Servington
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Scone, Lord
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Moreing, Adrian C.
Selley, Harry R.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.



Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morrison, William Shepherd
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Lord Erskine and Commander




Southby.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. TINKER: I hope the Committee will reject this Clause, which, in my view, deals with, probably, the greatest event connected with this Budget, for under it we are reverting to a system which, I thought, had already been abandoned, that of increasing indirect taxation. That is the direction in which the Tea Duty leads. During the many years I have been in the House I have watched the growing tendency in favour of direct taxation, and prior to this Budget we had got to the point where about 67 per cent. of the revenue was raised by direct taxation and 33 per cent. by indirect taxation. We had advanced to that point from the old view that direct and indirect taxation ought to be on a fifty-fifty basis; and
under the influence of progressive thought I had expected that we should eventually come to the point where direct taxation raised round about 90 per cent. of the revenue and indirect taxation 10 per cent., and that largely by duties on luxuries. I can quite understand that luxuries should bear indirect taxation; even I, who am so strongly in favour of direct taxation, would go that far. Now this Budget has turned in another direction. I would ask hon. Members, when considering the change, not to regard it altogether from the point of view of money. This Tea Duty will bring in about £3,600,000 this year and in a full year just over £4,000,000. That fact ought not to influence the Committee to any very great extent; it is the larger question of principle which ought to occupy their attention.
There is one right hon. Gentleman who, though I do not think it can be said he ever made much appeal to this side of the House, at any rate did one thing in his history—and probably the only one— of which we can speak well. I refer to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), who in 1928, I believe, removed the Tea Duty. Whether that was done with the object of creating in the country an atmosphere favourable to the return of the Tory Government at the next election I cannot say, but for some reason or other he removed the Tea Duty, which, I understand, had been in operation more or less ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth. Now all the credit he obtained in that way is being taken away. It is true that he is not a Member of the Cabinet, but he must bear some share of responsibility for the Cabinet's action, and I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman to be here to help the Labour party in standing up for the line he took previously. As he is not here, we must assume that he agrees with the National Government in levying further indirect taxation.
May I give one illustration to show the effect of this particular duty, because it will be more effective than anything else I can say? When we are knocking about the country on a cold winter day nothing is more inviting than to see a roadman enjoying a can of tea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beer."] Round about noon you will see them making preparations to get a can of tea. [Interruption.] It may be a laughing matter to hon. Members opposite, but this is a sound, practical point, in my opinion. The can of tea looks very inviting, even to one who is passing along the road, and it means a good deal to those people—a can of strong tea. In a slight way there will now be taxation on that can of tea—we cannot get away from that fact. I want to contrast the position of that roadman having his can of tea with that of the leisured classes who, when they want a reviver, have a cocktail or a glass of wine. Would it not be better for the National Government to say, "We must raise £.3,000,000 or £4,000,000 and, though we do not like to put on further taxation, yet if it has to be borne by someone the burden must fall on those people who seek a reviver from wines or cocktails"?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not attempt to defend even a duty on
tea on the ground that it was right, and only said the money was needed; but the people who take wines or cocktails can surely much better afford to pay than the humble roadman who drinks his can of tea. In citing the case of the roadman, I am putting only one instance of thousands which could be found in every humble home in the country, because all will have to bear part of this taxation of £4,000,000. For two reasons, first, that we are taking a step in a backward direction by imposing more indirect taxation, and, second, that we are imposing a burden on the poorer classes, I hope this Clause will be rejected by the Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I have much pleasure in opposing the Clause. The party to which I belong has been opposed, throughout its existence as a separate body in this House to the argument that it is a right and proper allocation of the burdens of taxation to expect those who are least able to bear taxation to pay, in the aggregate, an equal proportion, as compared with those who are more capable of bearing taxation. Therefore, we have never accepted the proposition which used to be advanced and accepted almost universally, that the old fifty-fifty division of taxation was a fair allocation. Last year the proportion stood at 66.2 direct taxation and 33.8 indirect taxation, and now there seems to us to be a tendency to readjust this proportion, and to return to the habit of placing a heavier burden upon indirect taxation, and a lesser burden upon direct taxation.
Let us, for a moment, accept the proposition that the country and the Government are in financial straits. I do not subscribe to the proposition put forward by hon. and right hon. Members opposite that during the last six months the country has been passing through a serious financial crisis, but it has been considered necessary in order to meet a crisis that a certain amount of extra taxation should be imposed. I put before the Committee what seems to me to be a fair proposition. Granted that we have to impose extra taxation, upon whom in the main should that extra taxation fall? That raises a question of principle, and it is one which strikes at the root of our Parliamentary and political differences. To those who belong to the Labour party, the answer is precise, and admits of no doubt whatsoever. We say that the
burden of taxation should fall upon the shoulders of those best able to bear it. If that be so, we are on sound ground in controverting the principle which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put forward that it is right to impose extra taxation on the poor through the medium of the Tea Duty.
Let me remind the Committee what this imposition really means. Hon. Members should not forget that this is only the beginning of the imposition of more indirect taxation upon the poor. In the Budget of last September the main burden fell upon the poor of the country, and the main provision made by that Budget was secured through cuts imposed upon various sections of the working classes. The unemployed, the teachers and the people in the lower regions of salaries and wages were the people who were called upon to bear the main burden of the cuts imposed by the Budget of last September. Since then it is well known that the working classes have not enjoyed any advance in wages; on the contrary, the tendency has been for wages to decline, and, in spite of the tremendous burdens imposed under the Finance Bill of last Autumn, and in spite of subsequent reductions in wages and the earning capacity of the people, we are now invited to contemplate with equanimity a proposal whereby one of the necessities of every working class home is to bear an entirely unjust burden through the medium of the Tea Duty.
I believe that I am right in saying— I speak from memory—that the average consumption of tea is about 11 lbs. per head per annum of the population. Let hon. Members consider for a moment what that means in an ordinary working class home. It is a well-known fact, as everyone acquainted with working class homes will testify, that the consumption of tea is heaviest amongst the working classes, and therefore the burden of this duty will fall upon them with the greatest severity. In these circumstances, the working classes are entitled to protest against the constant assumption that the workers, because the taxation is indirect, will be so unaware of its incidence that they will agree to bear the burden without any unnecessary groaning. I am afraid that there will come a time in this country when the workers will protest against this constant habit of impos-
ing extra burdens upon a section of the community which is unable to bear it. If hon. Members desire to develop the revolutionary feeling in this country, and to create a spirit of resentment; if they want to exasperate the feelings of the people of this country, taxation of this kind is the right road to travel.
We spent four months last year in trying to carry through a proposal whereby one single element of proprietorship connected with the land should be called upon to prepare for or contemplate the setting up of machinery whereby land should bear its proper burden of taxation, and those associated with the landowners held up the work of this House for four months while the Finance Bill was being carried. After having safeguarded the land-owning interest, we are now called upon to accept, with equanimity, a duty of 4d. per lb. on the tea of the poorest of the poor in the land. I cannot help feeling that those hon. Members who, for party reasons, are called upon to support this proposal, feel at the bottom of their hearts some sense of shame concerning the implications of a proposal of this sort. They must know as well as we do that the poor of this country are indirectly taxed up to the hilt. Not only that, but they are being asked to pay additional taxation at a time when their earning capacity is so low that the possibility left to them of keepng the wolf from the door is reduced almost to a minimum. From our point of view, we regard this piece of legislation as unjust in its incidence, unjust in the philosophy which underlies it, and for that reason we shall oppose it with all our strength.

Mr. LEWIS: We all know that it must be very annoying to hon. Members opposite, when standing on a platform, having promised to spend more money in certain directions, to have it brought home to them by their hearers that they will have to contribute to that expenditure. It is so much nicer to be able to tell listeners that somebody else is going to pay and get away with it. In so far as indirect taxation makes everybody realise their just burdens, it is desirable for its own sake. Our Budgets for years past have suffered because the basis of taxation has been unduly narrow. At a time when it is necessary to raise very large sums of money for the public
revenue. I cannot see how it can be argued that tea is not a proper subject to bear some form of taxation. After all, tea is no more a necessity than beer, and when taxation has to be raised, and when all the existing sources of revenue are heavily taxed to a point at which the revenue is diminishing, surely it is not unreasonable to bring in this stimulant, tea, and place a small tax upon it? The Government have had the courage to do this, and one advantage is that, at the same time, it has afforded an opportunity to give a preference to Indian and Ceylon tea. On these grounds alone, the Government are to be congratulated upon having introduced this duty.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. JONES: I do not pretend to be an expert on tea, but I want to support the views of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), who sympathised with the beer-drinker, although I have much sympathy with the tea-drinker who is being so heavily taxed. I happen to belong to both sections. So far as my own household is concerned, I remember the time when a cup of tea was looked upon as a God-send. When I was unemployed, I know that I was very glad when a friend of mine gave me a cup of tea, and he could not give me anything stronger. I would like to remind hon. Members opposite that very few of them had the courage at the last General Election to tell the electors, more particularly in the industrial centres, that if returned they would vote for a tax on tea. They were distinctly silent upon that issue. Hon. Members opposite are making apologies to-day not for the things they promised they would do, but for the things they have done. Most hon. Members opposite at the last election stated that they were opposed to taxing food. Hon. Members are only in favour of taxing certain kinds of food, and we are all going to sign petitions in favour of reducing taxation on others. I shall be with them when it comes to beer, because I am personally interested and I believe that, when it comes to the crucial moment of going into the Lobby, I shall have more courage than most of those who have been protesting so loudly against the tax all over Britain ever since it was put on. They have to listen to their master's voice.
There is really only one kind of taxation which is fair—direct taxation. Everybody ought to be taxed according to income, and the only difference that ought to be made should be in favour of earned income as against unearned income. We should fix a minimum income below which men should not be taxed. There is at present a limit below which they cannot be taxed for Income Tax purposes. Why not establish a minimum standard of life and tax everybody above that in proportion to their means and then we could abolish all this indirect taxation? If a census of national wealth were taken we would by that method discover enough wealth to enable us to raise more by direct taxation than we are now raising and we could do so without creating the present antagonism. Most of the workers of the country do not earn sufficient income to be taxed directly, but we tax them in another way. If I drink a glass of beer, I am taxed as against the man who does not. Why should he have a privilege compared with me or any other individual? Why should one citizen have a preference over another because of his virtues? After all, we are all as good as we can be and none of us as good as we ought to be. Yet, because I drink a glass of beer, I am singled out for special attack. The poorer the people are in this case the heavier they are taxed. My mother's principal article of diet is tea; her kettle is always on the hob and a cup of tea is a great reviver to her. She is still alive, thank God, and is an old age pensioner. With her pension and with the assistance that she gets from those of us who are able to help her, she is able to carry on fairly well, but by this duty the Government will tax her out of all proportion to her means in order to balance their Budget. It is a most contemptible and mean trick.
We are told by some of the experts that we have reached the limit of taxation as far as direct taxation is concerned. I was reading the "Observer" yesterday, and read of all the tours all over the world in the coming holiday season. For £40 one can go on a tour of the Mediterranean for a fortnight. £40 is almost as much as some workmen earn in a year. Yet we are told that people have not got the money. For 100 guineas first-class one can go further. One can go all over
the world; I wish some of these people would go to the next world. Yet, when the country is in financial difficulties, the Government come back to Phil Garlic. The day will come when the workers will say "Finis." There is only a beggarly array of us here in Opposition now, but, before many months are passed, we shall come back stronger than ever, and we shall be able to reverse this process and be able to make the people pay who can pay. We shall put a stop to the game which hon. Members opposite have begun again. We thought we had wiped out one form of food tax when the Tea Duty was abolished, and we hope to go further and free the tables of the people. I am sorry to see that those hon. Members who used to teach us the way to a free breakfast table, and who used to declare on platforms all over the country that they were going to lead us back to prosperity by freeing the food of the people from all taxation went into the Lobby to-day to reimpose this tax in another form. When we return to power we shall put the burden on the backs best able to bear it, and, as the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) once said, we shall squeeze them until the pips squeak. I hope that some future Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer will make hon. Members opposite sorry that they ever reimposed the Tea Duty.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Many hon. Members must have been surprised when the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) put forward the principle that there should be no indirect taxation at all. It is an entirely new principle in the programme of the Socialist party, and we have been told repeatedly that direct taxation has reached its limit. We have heard it argued that there are those who pay direct taxation and who still have plenty of money, and that therefore they ought to pay more direct taxation. That is not the point. The point is that industry is so heavily taxed that it cannot bear these burdens. If we go on increasing direct taxation, industry will be unable to produce, and will be compelled to reduce the number of workers and thus create unemployment among the people. Surely it is far better that they should have employment and pay this indirect tax on tea than that the burden should be added to the already overburdening weight of taxation on industry and that
more men should consequently be thrown out of work? There was at one time an idea that there should be no taxation without representation. Now we are to have representation without any taxation at all. Surely it cannot be a sound principle that there should be a number of people in this country obtaining all the benefits from the State and yet paying nothing at all for them. It is pauperising those people, and I do not believe that even they themselves would be in favour of that policy.
It has been suggested that this tax of 4d. a pound on foreign and 2d. a pound on Empire tea would mean that so many millions of pounds would be paid by the poorest people of this country. I do not agree with that argument at all. Surely the idea underlying the extra tax on foreign tea is that foreign tea shall not come into the market to the extent to which it has come in the past and that, owing to the preference, Empire tea will have a greater market in this country to the exclusion of foreign tea. It is, therefore, not a sound argument to suggest that foreign tea will be imported to the same extent when this tax is imposed as it has been in the past. After all, a 4d. tax on tea only means a very small increase in cost, about 1d. on 40 cups, while a 2d. duty represents 1d. on 75 cups. This tax is not by any means new for it has been imposed for about 300 years with the exception of the three years since 1929 when it was taken off by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).
One must remember the advantage which this preference will give to the tea industry in India. Are not the Members of the Socialist party concerned at all with the workers in India? I thought that they were great internationalists, and did not confine their attention to workers in this country, but also thought of the workers in other parts of the world. Surely their sympathies would go out to the workers in the British Empire first. This preference is of great importance to the coolies working in the tea gardens in India and Ceylon. I understand that at least 80 per cent. of the Indian tea which is being sold in England at the present time is being sold at a loss and that the tea gardens cannot possibly continue in cultivation under those conditions. This duty and preference are a means of saving
the tea industry in the Empire and of ensuring the continued employment of the coolies engaged in it. I should imagine that that would be of some moment to the Members of the Socialist party, who are international in their views on these matters, There is no doubt that this preferential duty will have the most beneficial effect and will enable those tea gardens, which would have gone out of cultivation, to continue, and that it will revive an industry which, if nothing had been done, was undoubtedly doomed to destruction.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It was very welcome to those of us who sit on these benches to hear two hon. Members, who support the Government, being bold enough to say so and to champion the Tea Duty. I hope that they will champion it when the next election takes place and that the hon. Member above the Gangway will deliver the same speech on a political platform to a working class audience that he delivered just now. Let me deal first with one or two of the arguments of the hon. Member behind me. He thought that we on these benches ought to support the Tea Duty, particularly the duty on Empire tea, because we were internationalists. If we were certain that the extra duty would go into the pockets of the working classes in India, we would listen to his argument, but we are not satisfied that that is the case. We are too well acquainted with the rates of wages paid and with the profits made, and consequently that argument avails him very little.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: The wages paid to the coolies in India have been considerably increased and are far greater than the wages paid by the Dutch tea producers.

Mr. DAVIES: That hardly meets my argument. I want to know what proportion of this additional duty will go into the pockets of the working people in India. Most of it, if not all, will go into the pockets of the shareholders and, if I am not mistaken, that was what it is intended to do. The hon. Member tried to make this Tea Duty appear very small and very petty by saying that it was only 2d. on 75 cups of tea. Surely that depends on the size of the cup and the strength of the tea. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways.
I should not have risen, however, but for the speech of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis), who made the extraordinary statement that tea is no more necessary than beer. I have no experience of the latter, but I have had considerable experience of the use of tea as a coal miner, and I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that tea is used by the working people of this country to a much greater extent than he imagines. The fact that I want to make plain about tea is that the working people have not the other alternatives to tea that hon. Gentlemen have. In fact, in some working-class homes tea is almost the exclusive beverage. When I worked underground, it was common to take down flasks of cold tea. We were not allowed to take beer, even if we were beer drinkers, and, of course, water was unhealthy. I should imagine, therefore, that a large proportion of the miners of this country, even now, take cold tea underground, and that that is what they drink in the main.
One hon. Member mentioned that industry was being unduly taxed. In that connection I should like to say that during the holidays I have seen the effects of the policy of the Tory party—for this Government is a Tory Goverment—in trying to balance the Budget. With regard to the balance of argument as between industry and the other ratepayers, I find that a large number of people, owing to this policy of the Tory party, are totally unable to keep up their payments in respect of the new houses which have been built for them by private enterprise and by the municipalities. The Tory party are not holding a fair balance between industry and the other ratepayers of the country. What else have they done? The first thing that they did when this Parliament was called into being was to attack the food supplies of the people—the horticultural products—in trying to balance the Budget, and almost everything that they have done since to balance the Budget involves an attack on the food of the people. I agree that the wheat quota, probably, did not belong to the Budget, but even when that was established it attacked the food of the people.
It is argued that the cost of living has not increased owing to these measures, though I believe someone said it had
increased by about 4 per cent. I cannot, however, vouch for that; but when it is said that the cost of living has not gone up in spite of all these additional duties, it must be remembered that, were it not for these duties, the cost of living would have been lower. Let me picture, for the benefit of hon. Gentlemen who talk so glibly about this matter, an area in my division, containing about 6,000 people, where no wheel has turned in any mill or factory or coal mine for several years. Some of these people have had their unemployment benefit reduced; some are on the means test; some are on the Poor Law. Is there any hon. Gentleman present who will say that this Tea Duty will not affect them adversely? It will affect them vitally. Hon. Gentlemen must understand that every sixpence counts in the homes of these people today; it is not a question of shillings. Hon. Gentlemen ought to go to the homes of some of these people and see how they live. I can assure them that the situation there is not as easy as they imagine. I am sure, however, that with the spread of education and of knowledge of politics and of the tendencies and attitude of mind of governments, the people of this country will some day come to the conclusion that we have reached, that the fact that the Budget of this country has been diffiult to balance is no indication that all the people of the country are poor. A goodly number of them are richer to-day than ever they were. [Interruption.] The War made some people in this country, as it did in every country in Europe, richer than ever they were, and it made them richer at the cost of making others poorer than they were. Therefore, we have a right to protest, not merely because this duty is 2d. or 4d., but because of the tendency of the Government of the day in taxing the food of the people, and, accordingly, we shall vote against this Clause.

Major ELLIOT: One would imagine, from the speech that has just been delivered, that there never had been a Tea Duty in this country at all, that a Tea Duty had never been imposed by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the duty imposed by the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer had never been backed up by the whole of the party
opposite—who were much stronger than they are now—including the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who was then a Member of the Government. Why did he not say this to his colleagues? Why did he not threaten them with resignation if they continued to tax the miners and the poorest of the poor? He made no protest; he remained a Member of that Government, supporting it with his powerful aid. I remember him well as a distinguished ornament of that Government; he represented it with great acceptance at many international conferences, as well as here at home; and it is a little hard that he should hurl such unmeasured condemnation upon our heads for not being able to maintain a reform which was put through by a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer with the support of a Tory party, but which it was not found possible to maintain in less prosperous years.
The hon. Gentleman has just mentioned 6,000 people in one area in his constituency where no wheel has turned for years. Did the remission of the Tea Duty do so much to put these people back into work? The duty was remitted, the object being to improve the state of the country's trade and improve the standard of living of the people, but the hon. Gentleman now tells us, quite rightly, that there are places in his division where not a wheel has turned for years, in spite of the efforts that were then made. He says that the tendency of this Government is to pile burdens of taxation upon the poorest of the people. I have noticed on the opposite benches a strong contingent from the gallant country of Wales. There is a great Welshman who fought as keenly as most people for the good of the people, and who brought forward a great Budget, which was called the People's Budget, and which introduced great social services and altered enormously the balance of direct and indirect taxation. [Interruption.] Yes, rare and refreshing fruit it was to bring. What were the proportions of direct and indirect taxation which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) not only introduced, but maintained through three prosperous years in this country, 1911, 1912, and 1913, with the strong-boxes of this country bulging with the revenues brought in?
The proportion which, on the average of those years, was carried by the direct taxpayer, was 57.4 per cent. of the taxation of this country. What is he carrying to-day? On the admission of the hon. Member opposite, he is carrying 61 per cent. On the other hand, the indirect taxpayer, on whose behalf we hear such bitter complaints, was then carrying 42.6 per cent., while this year he is carrying 39 per cent. Even to-day, therefore, after all the burdens which have been imposed, and have had to be imposed, on both direct and indirect taxpayers, the indirect taxpayer is carrying a less proportion than he was in the three pre-War years under the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and the direct taxpayer is carrying considerably more. Taking the gross totals, in those years before the War the direct taxpayer was carrying a burden of £90,470,000 a year. To-day he is carrying a burden of £460,000,000, and yet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite complain that the burden on the direct taxpayer is not nearly heavy enough, and should be vastly increased.
I am tempted to apply the adjective of which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) blamed me for applying when I was speaking last week in Cardiff. I mentioned the adjective "clap-trap," and the hon. Member thought that it was my adjective. Was it? Does he remember the occasion when that adjective was used? Does he remember who used it? Was it not used by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that he went to the Labour party to find the means of balancing the Budget, and was met with clap-trap about getting it out of the Super-tax payers. That was Lord Snowden's phrase, and I must say one is tempted to re-echo that adjective when one, hears some of the arguments that are adduced in favour of the proposals which are being brought forward on this occasion.
On the last occasion on which this matter was discussed, the hon. Member for Westhoughton said that the tax was 4d. a pound on the tea used by the working people, and we challenged that statement. Does he know of any case in which the duty is at the rate of 4d. a pound? He was unable to produce such a case, although he said, speaking with his great knowledge, that he believed
there were cases in which the price had gone up by that amount. Since that time I have investigated the matter myself, and I find that there is no case in which the price has gone up by 4d. a pound, unless it be in the case of the most expensive blends of pure China tea. Surely, the hon. Member is not going to suggest that the cold tea of the miner, or the tea which the mother of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) keeps on the hob of her fireplace, is the purest China tea? [Interruption.] There is no duty on Irish tea as far as I know.
The arguments which have been brought forward are to some extent arguments addressed to the sweeping away altogether of indirect taxation, and its complete replacement by direct taxation. The hon. Member for Silvertown made an eloquent plea to that effect, which, however, lost most of its force when one realised that it was to be coupled with an exemption limit which would exempt practically all the people whom he knew or who were going to vote for him. I think I am not unfairly representing his argument, because the contention is that the people who vote for him are so poor that they should not be asked to contribute at all towards the expenses of the State. I do not think that that contention can reasonably be maintained. I do not think it is denied that, to the poorer as well as to the richer members of the community, great benefits come from the community by way of the social services, the health services, and the unemployment insurances of which mention has been made. The poorer members of the community do receive great advantages from being members of the community, and in most cases they do not themselves grudge the making of some contribution towards the expenses of the State.
7.30 p.m.
The arguments which have been used in favour of the abolition of indirect taxation do not require more than a mere mention, for, obviously, it would be unfitting to go into them in detail when we are discussing the question whether there should or should not be a duty on tea. As regards the actual amount of the duty, let it be remembered that not merely has this duty gone on for hundreds of years, but that it has gone on at a still higher rate than we propose to apply to-day—that the duty on tea before the War was 5d. a pound, that the duty on tea, even when it was re-
pealed altogether, was at the rate of 4d. a lb., with a remission of only two-thirds of a penny in the case of Empire tea and, as Empire tea is some 80 or 90 per cent. of the tea brought into the country, it is reasonable to suppose that the price would be determined by the duty placed upon Empire tea rather than by the higher duty placed upon foreign tea.
It is said that this is an unjust imposition on the poorer members of the community. All I can say is that the tax was in force for many years when the poorer members of the community had a far lower standard of living than to-day. It is not ill will or spite or malignity towards the working class that leads the Government to propose such a tax, but the necessity of balancing the Budget, and that is. of as much importance to the poorer members of the community as to the richer. The £4,000,000 which we hope to obtain will have to be found from somewhere, and we seriously believe it will be less burdensome to the community raised in this way than in any other way that can be suggested, although no way has been suggested in the Debate. For all these reasons, I hope the Committee will find it possible to sanction the Clause, because we believe firmly that it is dire necessity which has led to the imposition of these taxes. Only by a revival of trade and prosperity will it be possible to avoid the necessity of the imposition of this and other taxes, which we all feel are hardships and burdens upon the people and upon the industry of the country. Without an improvement in trade we shall not be able to get rid of the necessity of heavy taxation, and, since this heavy taxation is necessary, let us face up to it like men and make sure that we balance the Budget and face up to our responsibilities.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman, as he always does, has made out as good a case as can be made out for the proposal, but he surely was not entitled to take my hon. Friend to task because he wanted to exempt his voters from the tax. It is the very basis of our constitution that it should be so. This House owes its origin, and it certainly owes its development, to attempts on the part of the common people to escape the
burden of taxation. To argue in 1932 that a Member of the House is merely asking that a tax shall be taken off his constituents because they are his constituents is simply to accuse him of behaving as a proper representative of his people. If you want to impose taxes, you must abolish democracy. So long as you have parliamentary democracy it will use its political power to remove taxation from its shoulders. The whole tendency of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that, if you are to continue to have taxes of this description, you must either cease to represent your people or you must abolish democracy entirely. The House has taken one of those alternatives. It has decided to misrepresent the people. My hon. Friend, who was twitted for coming here to advance what he considers the point of view of his people, is indeed an ideal representative. It might, of course, be that the people want disastrous things. It might happen that what democracy requires at any particular time it is not good for democracy to have, but, so long as this is a democratic nation, you must give democracy what it wants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"!] Here we have strange reasoning. Hon. Members say that the arbiters of what the nation should have should be not the people themselves but self-elected persons. [An HON. MEMBER: "The House of Commons."] Precisely, and the House of Commons is an elected assembly.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting a very long way from the question before the Committee.

Mr. BEVAN: Then I will come back, though I was merely pursuing the argument advanced by the Financial Secretary and pointing out that democracy will demand that these taxes shall be removed. The right hon. Gentleman defended the tax because it was an old one. That is an astonishing defence. The older the tax is, I suppose, the more sacrosanct. There are much older taxes, if age is to be the justification. Windows were taxed in the Middle Ages. Why does he not tax them now? He also told us that our Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained the Tea Duty. He did not impose it. When he had the opportunity, and had funds at his disposal, he reduced it from 8d. to 4d., and then the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) continued the process of corrupting democracy by taking it off. Realising that the Tory party was trying to be a democratic party, and thinking the people did not want the Tea Duty, he took it off. But then there was an election in front of them. Now the election is behind them. They are hoping that, in four years, at some time, from somewhere, somehow, something will happen to rescue them from their difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman did not address himself to the gravamen of the charge that we are bringing against the Government, which is that they have not a mandate from the people for the imposition of this tax and that it is a falsification of the general balance of the scheme of economy which the National Government came into existence to defend. The National Government defended itself on the ground that the burden of carrying the nation through the crisis was being equally distributed amongst all sections of the community. This unbalances that scheme. This is a process of transferring a part of that burden to the shoulders of the poor people and is, therefore, in flat contradiction to the character of the mandate that the Government obtained.

Mr. HOWARD: Is there any more universally consumed item than tea?

Mr. BEVAN: I do not see the relevance of that interruption.

Mr. HOWARD: It bears equally upon all sections of the community.

Mr. BEVAN: Air is consumed by everyone. It is nonsense to say that, because something is consumed by everyone, everyone consumes it in the same proportion. To suggest that we are advancing this now because we are out of office is in flat contradiction to the history of indirect taxation. Indirect taxation has been progressively fought. It has been regarded as an indication of progress, of democratic health and public wholesomeness, that indirect taxation shall be removed. I always thought it was the highest principle of public probity that we should make it as clear as possible to the electorate what they were paying in taxation. One of the difficulties that the Government will be up against at the next election has never been realised before in the
history of indirect taxation, and that is that you now have on the register female voters over 21. Men are not particularly susceptible to the arguments of indirect taxation, because they do not buy in the shops, but at the next election, if you pile those taxes on as you intend to do, you will either have to deprive women of the vote or be turned out. You need not imagine that you will escape the consequences of this. You will reap them. We are registering our protest now and we are going to register it in crescendo. It is not to be assumed that, because we are numerically weak, we are not going to make our voices heard. As these taxes are imposed, we shall make our protests more loudly than ever.
The right hon. Gentleman did not reply to the proposition that seems to me to be most relevant to the issue. He says, "If we do not impose the tax it will unbalance the Budget." Why does he not suggest increased taxes on the Super-tax payer? It is true that, if you increase Income Tax and Super-tax, you will decrease the absolute yield. The law of diminishing returns has certainly started to apply, but the law of diminishing returns has started to apply to the consumers of tea as well. It is a marvellous phrase for saying that the absolute yield of taxation is increasing while the relative yield is falling. But under the Economy Act the people are relatively poorer than they were. The law of diminishing returns applies not only to the Income Tax payer but to the poorest people in the country. That is no argument for a change in the incidence of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman really must address himself to the main issue before the Committee and not indulge in these philosophical excursions— arid ho can do so very much better than? can. The issue is really this. How do you justify £4,000,000 additional taxation upon the poor people of the country, (a) under the terms under which the Government has been elected and (b) under any principle of equity that he can explain? If the Income Tax payer is too poor to pay additional taxation, obviously the man who is below the Income Tax level is too poor to pay additional taxation. The right hon. Gentleman has not really addressed himself to that argument. The reason why he has not done so is because
the House has coldly, maliciously and deliberately made up its mind that if things get more difficult in Great Britain, the poor people are to be made to pay. It has made up its mind. It is an unrepresentative House of Commons. The hon. and gallant Member opposite who finds this sort of thing unpleasant will find it increasingly unpleasant as time goes on unless his conscience is completely obliterated by his companionships.
We hold the view that if the crisis worsens, and if this is the only sort of legislation which the Government are able to bring forward, steps will be taken outside the House of Commons to bring a sense of equity into public life. You dare not make the House of Commons unrepresentative of the country without ultimately paying the price. At the last election working-class people all over the country voted for people who were inflicting upon them a 10 per cent. reduction in Unemployment Insurance benefit. Unemployed men in thousands must have voted for men who were imposing a 10 per cent. reduction. Working-class people all over the country must have voted for the people who are now going to vote for the imposition of this £4,000,000 tax. [Interruption.] Of course they did; we admit it. But does any sensible person believe that they did it because they liked the 10 per cent. reduction, or the tax? They did it—we believe wrongly—because they thought that the policy hon. Members opposite were advocating would get them out of their difficulties, restore employment, make life more agreeable to them, and get rid of the failures of the last 10 years. The last nine months have revealed clearly that the Government are merely a collec-

tion of all the political failures of the last 10 years. It has been revealed clearly that here is a combination of political limpets. It has become clear that the National Government have no policy at all for the crisis. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but one of the distinguished Members of the Government in a speech delivered during the week-end said that unfortunately the main policy of the Government—tariffs—applied to the 19th century and not to the 20th century. The Government have awakened to the fact that it is the 20th century, and they have no policy. I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen the plain question, "Do you think, having clearly revealed to the electorate that you have no solution for their difficulties, that they will then proceed to vote—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is again getting very far away from tea.

Mr. BEVAN: Does the Committee think that the electorate will vote for taxes such as the Tea Duty? Is it seriously suggested that in face of the failure to produce a policy they will vote in this way because they are prepared to pay for the sake of paying? They have paid because they thought there was an emergency or a crisis. It is now clearly revealed that, having no policy for the crisis at all, hon. and right hon. Members opposite are following a class policy, a deliberate, malicious class policy of unloading the consequences of their failure on to the backs of poor, helpless people whom they deprived of their power by a trick.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 309; Noes, 41.

Division No. 190.]
AYES.
[7.51 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brockiebank, C. E. R.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Birchall. Major Sir John Dearman
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Burghley, Lord


Allen. Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Burnett, John George


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Caine, G. R. Hall-


Atkinson, Cyril
Blindell, James
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Campbell. Rear-Adml. G (Burnley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bosssom, A. C.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boulton, W. W.
Carver, Major William H.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cassels, James Dale


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Castle Stewart, Earl


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Bracken, Brendan
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th,C.)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborouuh)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Penny, Sir George


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord Hugh
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Percy, Lord Eustace


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Hopkinson, Austin
Perkins, Walter R, D,


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh. S.)
Hornby, Frank
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.


Clarke, Frank
Howard, Tom Forrest
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Pickering, Ernest H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Potter, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Colville, John
Jamieson, Douglas
Pybus, Percy John


Conant, R. J. E.
Jennings, Roland
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cook, Thomas A.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Cooke, Douglas
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cranborne, Viscount
Ker, J. Campbell
Ray, Sir William


Craven-Ellis, William
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Rea, Walter Russell


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Crookshank Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Knatchbull, Captain Hon M. H. R.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Knebworth, Viscount
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Law, Sir Alfred
Robinson, John Roland


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Richard K. (Hull S. W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lockie, J. A.
Rosbotham, S. T.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leighton Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Denville, Alfred
Levy, Thomas
Rothschild, James A. de


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lewis Oswald
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dickie, John P.
Liddall, Walter S.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Donner, P. W.
Lindsay Noel Ker
Bussell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Duggan, Hubert John
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Llewellin Major John J.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Dunglass, Lord
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Scone, Lord


Eastwood, John Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Selley, Harry R.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark Bothwell)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lyons, Abraham Montanu
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Mabane, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
MacAndrew, Lieut. Col. C. G. (Partick)
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
MacAndrew, Capt J. O. (Ayr)
Slater, John


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Waller D.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
McKeag, William
Smithers, Waldron


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McKie, John Hamilton
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Somerville, D, G. (Willesden, East)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McLean Dr W H (Tradeston)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Macquisten Frederick Alexander
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mannay Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Maitland, Adam
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mailalleu, Edward Lancelot
Stevenson, James


Glossop, C. W. H.
Margcsson, Capt. Henry David R.
Stones, James


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Goldie, Noel B.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Strauss, Edward A.


Gower, Sir Robert
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Strickiand. Captain W. F.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Meller, Richard James
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Sutcliffe, Harold


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Grimston, R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Templeton, William P.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Thomas. James P. L. (Hereford)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hales, Harold K.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Morrison, William Shepherd
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Muirhead Major A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hanley, Dennls A.
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Harbord, Arthur
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hartland, George A.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
North, Captain Edward T.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
O'Connor, Terence James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Weymouth, Viscount


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon, William G. A.
White, Henry Graham


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Patrick, Colin M.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pearson, William G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Peat. Charles U.
Wills, Wilfrid D.




Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Withers, Sir John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Worthington, Or. John V.
Mr. Shakespeare and Mr.


Wise, Alfred R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Womersley.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hall, F, (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, H.)


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, George Henry
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Price, Gabriel


Buchanan, George
Janner, Barnett
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Duncan, Charles (Derby, Claycross)
Leonard, William
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 (Duties on certain colonial sugar, molasses, etc.) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Excise duties on sugar, molasses, etc.)

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that this Section shall not apply to sugar manufactured from homegrown beet unless the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that the grower of such beet has been paid a price representing a rate not less than thirty-eight shillings per ton, calculated in accordance with rules to be made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
This Amendment is a repetition of the Amendment which was moved when the Financial Resolutions were going through the House. In 1931, when the Sugar Subsidy Act of 1925 was declining and farmers were finding it extremely difficult to make a reasonable bargain with the factory owners and there was grave danger that the area under cultivation for sugar-beet would decline very rapidly, the Minister of Agriculture of that time deemed it wise to continue the payment of 1s. 3d. per cwt. extra for at least 12 months to ensure that there should be no diminution in the area of sugar-beet. But when he introduced that Motion Dr. Addison made it a condition that the whole of the funds provided by the State should be handed over to the farmers, and a minimum price was guaranteed.
I do not wish to enter into the wisdom or otherwise of subsidies being guaranteed either for the production of sugar beet or anything else, but when we are concerned with providing financial guarantees we ought not to do so with-
out laying down a condition as to how the money is going to be expended and who are to be the recipients. In Dr. Addison's case he was very definite. He locked, barred and bolted almost every door where the subsidy might have fallen through. The scheme was brought into operation at a rather late date due to some of the factory owners, the Anglo-Dutch group, refusing to enter into arrangements with the Minister on the lines on which the other 12 factory owners were able to do. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) on the Committee stage of the Budget Resolutions explained that the Anglo-Dutch group, for some reason best known to the shareholders of the company, were unable to enter into such an agreement. Therefore, 12 factories entered into an agreement with Dr. Addison, while five factories remained outside. The result of this failure to agree was that there was a diminution in the area under sugar beet.
This year, the Government have decided to continue in another form the same sort of payment for the production of sugar-beet, but with the vital difference that while they are providing the sum guaranteed through Excise payments that the last Government made, no condition is embodied ensuring that the grower of the sugar-beet shall receive the amount allocated by the Government. The First Commissioner of Works explained in our last Debate that 13 factories out of the 17 factories in existence, now running, had entered into an agreement with the growers to pay them a minimum of 40s., while the Anglo-Dutch group had adopted another method whereby they guaranteed the
grower of sugar-beet 35s., plus four-fifths of any profit that might remain. This arrangement had been made prior to the Government making their declaration through the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced his Budget.
As a result of the belated agreement of 1931 a large number of farmers refused to grow sugar-beet. Certain factories, therefore, found themselves short of sugar-beet and they lost money in the process. This year we find, in Lincolnshire in particular, now that the Kelham factory has been closed down, that several farmers who have hitherto produced sugar-beet are no longer producing it, and to that extent they are losing on their farms. I had the misfortune to travel through a good deal of Lincolnshire during the Whitsuntide holidays and, to my dismay, I witnessed what, to one interested in agriculture, was neither more nor less than a tragedy. If the Government could see the real value of financial guarantees and the value of acting early enough and giving definite guarantees to the grower of sugar-beet, the area of cultivation would not be reduced but would be multiplied, and instead of the Kelham factory being closed I believe it would be working full time, and the farmers would benefit as a result.
The arrangement referred to by the First Commissioner of Works may appear sound on the surface, but the fact that the Anglo-Dutch group have only guaranteed 35s. leaves an element of speculation for the farmer. It is a sort of a gamble, and the right hon. Gentleman knows full well that no farmer at this time can afford to gamble more than he does gamble in the ordinary process of his business. We think that if this Amendment were accepted the Anglo-Dutch group, who own 4 of the 17 factories now running, would in no way be imposed upon. It only makes three shillings a cwt. difference. Unless they can make their arrangements with the farmers early enough not only to ensure adequate supplies but to ensure to the grower a reasonable price, they ought to be compelled to go out of production and to leave the job in the hands of someone who would be much more sympathetic to the farmers and to the country than the factory owners have been in the past.
The Home Secretary has been one of the biggest opponents of the beet-sugar subsidy ever since 1925. He has never lost an opportunity of attacking the scheme from top to bottom. I should like to see the Home Secretary to-night replying to this Debate, seeing that we are giving £220,000 or £230,000 away, without any condition at all. Apart altogether from the statement made by the First Commissioner of Works on the last occasion and the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, we are convinced that the principle is wrong in guaranteeing national funds without conditions, and that the method has been hopelessly wrong and has done infinite harm to this phase of agricultural life. The hon. and gallant Member for Eye, who knows a good deal about this business, said, referring to the closing of the Kelham factory, that it was due to the failure to receive sufficient raw material to run the factory. As one of the directors we are obliged to accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Member. If we are to accept that as the real explanation, and we take it that it is, the fact that the raw material was not available was due to the fact that the farmers had not a guaranteed price at a date early enough to ensure its being an economic proposition. The hon. and gallant Member further said that:
The failure last year on the part of the farmers to grow may have been because the contracts were very late, but it was not due to any hesitancy on the part of the factory owners. Up to a very late date none of the factories had seen their way to offer contracts at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1932; col. 329, Vol. 265].
Clearly, the hon. and gallant Member contradicted himself. He admitted that the factory owners were unwilling to enter into contracts with the growers and we must assume, therefore, that the grower, with no sort of guaranteed price, refused to grow sugar beet. Consequently, there was a shortage of raw material. The Kelham factory has been closed down and the large number of people are disengaged as a result of the failure of the owners of the factory to enter into reasonable engagements with the growers. We therefore suggest that this Amendment ought to be accepted by the Government and that it ought to go forth to the factory owners and the farmers that when national funds are made available for the purpose of helping
a junior industry the grower of the commodity, whatever it may be, is going to be guaranteed an economic price for the article he is expected to produce. While it may have been, as many hon. Members have stated in the past, that this sugar business has been one of the biggest ramps in the country, now that we are making the payments the least we can do is to insist upon conditions being laid down that will reflect credit upon the Government and will prove that the Government subsidy has been a sound proposition. For these reasons, because we think the principle was wrong, that the method employed created belated contracts, has reduced the area of output and has brought about the closing of one factory, I move the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): In reply to the hon. Member, who certainly knows a great deal about this matter, I have very little to add to what I said on the Committee stage of the Resolution upon which this Clause is founded. The Government do not think it reasonable to enforce by Act of Parliament the tearing up of an arrangement entered into by the four factories of the Anglo-Dutch group this year with the farmers, and I do not believe that the farmers who are supplying the four working factories at Ipswich, King's Lynn, Ely and Cantley feel that this Amendment would be either helpful to them or is at all justified. Last year when Dr. Addison put forward his minimum condition upon which the subsidy was to be guaranteed the price of raw sugar was 6s. 6d. per cwt. To-day, or the latest figure that I have been able to get, the 20th May, the price of raw sugar was 4s. 7½d. Therefore, to fix this year the same minimum as was fixed last year, in the light of these figures, would be unreasonable.
I go further and say that in these matters it is unwise at this juncture to lay down that the particular form of contract which the majority of the factories have entered into is necessarily ideal and that the form of contract adopted by the Anglo-Dutch group is necessarily bad. We want another season's experience as to how the form of contract works out. The position is this, that the majority of the factories have entered into a flat rate
contract of a minimum of 40s. and that the four factories of the Anglo-Dutch group have offered 35s., plus four-fifths of the profits. While it is desirable that there should be some minimum the question is whether in the variation of world prices it is not reasonable that the farmers and the factories should enter into profit-sharing arrangements, as it were. I am not at all sure but that the whole evolution of the relations between agricultural producers and distributors, if you consider the factories as distributors in this case, should not be more on a profit-sharing basis rather than on a flat rate basis. The whole tendency in the long run will be for the distributors, in order to safeguard their position, to put the flat rate as low as possible, and you will have the inevitable dog-fight between the distributor and the producer, the producer wanting a high rate and the distributor a low figure, instead of there being a communal interest on the basis of a profit-sharing arrangement.
While I am not disposed to say that the Government would for ever say that the Anglo-Dutch method of entering into contracts with beet growers is ideal I most certainly say that in this year, in view of world prices and the conditions which obtain, they do not feel justified in introducing legislation which would upset existing contracts entered into between the Anglo-Dutch group and the growers. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) who is a director of the Anglo-Dutch Company has always taken the keenest interest in promoting, an this House and outside, the agricultural industry and the interests of the agricultural producer, and only went into sugar-beet with the idea of assisting the growers and developing the sugar-beet industry in this country. He made it quite clear that the conditions which have been agreed upon this year between the Anglo-Dutch Company in respect of their four factories and the farmers who supply them have not created any sense of grievance, and so far from the area feeding these four factories having declined they feel sure that, given suitable weather conditions for the harvest, the factories will be working to full capacity. For these reasons, the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment which would interfere with arrangements which have been come to amicably.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The First Commissioner of Works, who was so depressed about the state of affairs in this country during the last week end and who has now become convinced that tariffs are no cure for present conditions—

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I never said that. The hon. and learned Member is not quoting me accurately. He is taking a single sentence entirely from its context, and I really think he is a little unfair.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Then the right hon. Gentleman still thinks that tariffs are a cure. I am sorry I was wrong, but he will learn shortly that they are not a cure. I thought he had already assimilated that piece of knowledge. He says that the Government cannot accept the Amendment, because it would not be reasonable to enforce by an Act of Parliament the tearing up of agreements with the Anglo-Dutch group. That is no sort of excuse for the Government not having thought of this before. It may be inconvenient at this stage to particular persons for a provision of this sort to be inserted in the Finance Bill, but our objection is that if you are going to grant a payment of this sort it should only be upon conditions. The principle which the Government follow is that when they are ladling out money to industry they can do at without any sort of conditions whatever, but when they are making a grant to ex-Service men they must make the most rigorous and harsh conditions before deciding whether they are to have a bare livelihood. That is not just or right.
Everybody knows that these factories have not done so badly out of the sugar beet industry in the past. The right hon. Gentleman says that the factories might be considered as the distributors of the farmers' goods. They have been the collectors of the profits. The factories have made the whole of the profits that have been available out of the growing of sugar beet, and the farmer has suffered thereby. Whatever view one may have as to the sugar beet subsidy, whether it is good or bad, surely if you are to have a subsidy its only purpose should be to assist the farmer and not the factory owner. The right hon. Gentleman now says that because some factory owners have entered into a particular arrangement with farmers, which may or may not be
a good arrangement, His Majesty's Government feel themselves bound to give this gratuity to the factory owner without any conditions whatsoever. It is not only a matter as to what happens this year; it is a matter of principle as to how the subsidy is going to be given in the future. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech made it quite clear that he agrees that it is desirable there should be a minimum price. He must therefore also agree that it is desirable that this House should lay down the minimum price, and that on occasions like the present it should exercise that power. If we let it slip by on this occasion what will happen next year? It will be quoted as a precedent. It will be said that it was not done last year. Factory owners will be entitled to think that it would not be done; that we cannot now at this time of the year, when they have fixed their contracts, put in a minimum price. We shall be prohibited for ever from doing what the right hon. Gentleman says is desirable; that is fix a minimum price.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I want to be quite clear about this. I said that while it might be desirable that there should be some minimum price, it was a question whether it was not desirable, over and above that minimum price, that there should be a profit-sharing arrangement, and that this was a matter which should be inquired into.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I was just going to make a suggestion which I feel certain now he will accept. That is that the minimum price put into this proviso should be a token price, simply to make it certain and to demonstrate to the country and the industry that Parliament is going to keep control in this matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman put in 35s. It is lower than we think necessary, but if contracts have been fixed let that price be put in as a demonstration that Parliament intends to keep control of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman can accept that proposition as a compromise on this occasion we shall be prepared not to divide on the Amendment.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is an entirely new suggestion. The Amendment says 38s., and that could not possibly be accepted. Obviously I have not time to consult either of ray right hon. Friends,
the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I will certainly bring to their notice the suggestion that the minimum price that has been agreed by the factories should be inserted in the Bill. I can give no pledge for the Government, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw this Amendment and move it again on the Report stage I will undertake to communicate to my right hon. Friend the point that he has raised, and see if it can be met in that way.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We are obliged for the suggestion, and although we do not accept it as a definite pledge regarding what the Government will do, the earnest of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions is quite clear, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 4 (Rates of drawback on certain sugar and molasses) and 5 (Repeal of sub-section (2) of s. 5 of 16 and 17 Geo. 5. c. 22) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to remove goods from Schedule 1 of 22 Geo. 5. c. 8.)

Sir S. CRIPPS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that an order made in pursuance of the powers conferred by this section shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament, and shall not come into force unless and until approved, either with or without modifications, by a resolution passed by such House.
The Clause deals with the power of the Treasury to remove goods from the First Schedule to the Import Duties Act of 1932. The Committee will recollect that during the discussion of the Import Duties Act a number of Amendments were put down to the First Schedule, and it was pointed out, I think by someone from the Government Front Bench, how desirable it was that the matters which are mentioned in the First Schedule should be retained within the control of this House and this Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I know, will sympathise with everything that I have to say on this Amendment, and will no
doubt be found in the Lobby with us when we go to a vote. Under the Import Duties Act, Section 19, Orders made by the Treasury or the Board of Trade under the Act are to be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made, and subsequently the House has power by Resolution to approve within 28 days. They immediately come into force and continue in force, if approved by the House, but if not so approved they lapse, subject to anything that has been done under them in the intervening period.
8.30 p.m.
The First Schedule to the Import Duties Act contains a great number of very important articles. Amongst them are articles of food, articles which are raw materials, and articles which, while the Bill was passing through the House, were mentioned by a number of hon. Members as articles which were of vital importance in several manufacturing industries. If it was necessary, when that Act was passing through the House, to retain those goods in the First Schedule under the control of this House or of this Committee, in our submission it is just as vital now to retain that same control. Power is being taken here, a power which it is impossible to dispute by way of Amendment, owing to the extra-ordinary Resolutions which were passed —Resolutions which even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not realise the meaning of at the time, but the effect of which no doubt he realises now. Those Resolutions prohibited any effective Amendment of the first Sub-section of this Clause of the Bill.
The position, therefore, is that these matters, which were retained by the House directly under its own control, it is now proposed by Clause 6 of the Bill to move out of the control of the House and into the control of the Tariff Commission, a commission which in some ways, as being the nucleus of the import boards which we have always recommended should be set up in connection with a proper planning and management of industry, may ultimately be of some use, because when there is a change of Government, as no doubt there will be before long, that Tariff Commission can be converted quite conveniently into an import board under Government control. That commission at the present time is
outside the control of this House. It is to be given absolute power under this Clause to make recommendations with regard to all those matters which were expressly reserved in the First Schedule to the Import Duties Act.
The object of the Amendment is that, where such an Order is to be made, it should have to be laid upon the Table of the House and should not come into force until approved by the House, instead of the existing procedure, which would allow it to come into force immediately. There might have been something to have been said with regard to the procedure under the Import Duties Act when you were dealing with putting duties on a whole list of articles unascertained in number, covering really the whole gamut of imports into this country, but so far as the First Schedule is concerned you are dealing with a limited class of articles, segregated for a special reason into that Schedule; and the consideration as regards notice which might be given to foreigners and so on are quite different when one comes to consider this specified list.
Take wheat or moat. Power is given under this Clause to withdraw meat or wheat from the Free List in the First Schedule to the Act. Is it suggested that so fundamental a change, even in the existing tariff position of this country, is to be brought about by a secret recommendation made by the Tariff Commission to the Treasury, and that the moment the Treasury makes the Order, without consulting this House, that Order is to have force, and that it is only for this House to say, after the Order has come into force, whether or not it wishes meat and wheat to be taxed? I say that especially in view of the well-known fact that even the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is fundamentally opposed to the taxation of those two commodities. He so stated in this House. I notice that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that it is not so, but he will remember the incident perfectly well. When the President of the Board of Trade was challenged about having said, during the election, that he was not in favour of the taxation of food, the right hon. Gentleman rose and corrected the statement by saying "What I said was that I was not in favour of taxing wheat and meat."
That is the actual sentence which the right hon. Gentleman used, and I do not suppose that he is not going to stand by that pledge which he gave at the election. I am sure that even the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not wish me to suppose that he is not going to stand by that pledge.

Major ELLIOT: The President of the Board of Trade surely is quite competent as President of the Board of Trade to consider at Ottawa or elsewhere whether the advantages of taxation would be greater than the disadvantages. Obviously, taxation might involve some disadvantage to this country, but there might be, in return for that, a much greater advantage coming to this country.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I daresay that that is the view which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes of election pledges but it is not the view which we take. We understand that if a Minister of the Crown goes to the country and says "I am opposed to and will not stand for the taxation of wheat or meat"—

Major ELLIOT: Will the hon. and learned Member quote again what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said. He is now putting a very skilful gloss upon it. The hon. and learned Member has now moved it just a little further forward. He said at first that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had declared that he was not in favour of taxing wheat and meat. The hon. and learned Member now puts a gloss on it and says that what the right hon. Gentleman declared was "I am opposed to and will not stand for the taxation of wheat and meat." I do not think that that is at all the same thing.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think I understated it on the first occasion. I always try to understate these matters if I possibly can. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, will consult his colleagues upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade is not in the House, but if he were here I would put the question to him. Be that as it may, however, it is well known that there are other Members of the Government who are opposed to it. There can be no doubt about them. I do not think that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will accuse me of "putting a
gloss on it" if I say that the Home Secretary is opposed to it, that the Secretary of State for Scotland is opposed to it, that the President of the Board of Education is opposed to it. The President of the Board of Education will not deny that—he assents to it. It is well known that in these matters it is not only a question of a considerable difference of opinion as between two parties in the House, but that there is a great difference of opinion in the so-called National Party itself.
We suggest that as we are dealing here with matters of importance which have been expressly reserved by the House of Commons for its own consideration it is not right now to take away that reserved power on which the House insisted, in connection with the Import Duties Act of 1922 and which both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade at that time thought the House ought to have. That is why the First Schedule came into existence. It was felt at that time that there were certain matters which ought to be taken out of the powers of the Advisory Committee. In the course of that Debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was introducing something of this sort in the Finance Bill, but it was never suggested that he was going to put it in the power of the Tariff Commission or the Treasury to deal with these fundamentally important matters without consulting the House of Commons. This is a subject of vast importance which is going to affect every single person in the country, and it is desirable and necessary that the House of Commons should retain its control and should be able to say, before the tax has been put on, whether or not it wishes that tax to be imposed. By this Amendment we ask the Committee to say that they are not going to part with their control over this vital matter either to the Advisory Committee or to the Treasury.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I wish to supplement the observations of my hon. and learned Friend on this Amendment which I think is the most important Amendment on the Order Paper. It may be that I shall change my mind on that point when I come to move another Amendment later on but, at the moment, this appears to be
certainly the most important Amendment that we have so far reached. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that if there is to be a Free List at all in connection with the Import Duties Act, that Free List ought not to be susceptible of disturbance by the three wise men. I have no intention of reflecting upon their ability, honesty or sincerity, their devotion to their task or their desire to serve the best interests of the nation, but I am quite unwilling to leave it to three persons to determine whether the 66,000 electors whom I represent are to pay more for their food than they are paying at this moment.
I cannot help recalling how during the Debates on the Import Duties Act we had real die-hard Protectionists demanding the inclusion of this and that article in the Free List. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) having supported Protection for 30 or 40 years, put down an Amendment asking that precious and semi-precious stones should be put on the Free List. And now right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to leave the power in the hands of the three wise men perhaps while Parliament is not sitting to withdraw precious and semi-precious stones from the Free List and thus create terrific embarrassment for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I also recall the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) pleading with the Chancellor, almost with tears in his voice, and pointing out that as a result of the threat to impose a duty upon lead and zinc, the price had increased by 7 per cent. The Noble Lord said that if that was an indication of what was going to happen in regard to a raw material for many of our industries, then clearly that was an item which ought to be placed on the Free List at the earliest possible moment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) produced documentary evidence to prove up to the hilt the statements of the Noble Lord. If those statements were correct, as I believe they were, ought we to leave it in the hands of three persons to determine whether lead or zinc are to be withdrawn from the Free List, should they find a place upon the Free List at any time?
The President of the Board of Education is sitting on the Front Bench. Does the Financial Secretary think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to be forced into the Lobby with the Labour party on this matter, creating unnecessary embarrassment for the right hon. Gentleman because he could not support the Government on such a proposal as this? Does he want to create more embarrassment in the Cabinet by forcing the Home Secretary to make a further declaration of his views about Protection and Free Trade, or the power to legislate by reference through an advisory committee of three? It; seems to me that this Clause is a most dangerous expedient. I could understand a body of anti-Parliamentarians, without any belief in any Parliamentary institutions at all, conferring power upon two or three persons to revolutionise the machinery of the House of Commons almost in the twinkling of an eye, but for a body of super-constitutionalists to be doing this passes my comprehension.
I notice opposite the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Rosbotham), and I should imagine that, if he had read this Clause, ho would be shocked to observe what the National Government are trying to compel him to support. I know that, as an ex-Labour Member of Parliament and a real good constitutionalist, he believes in Parliamentary institutions, and he cannot give his support to this Clause if he sees all its implications. But the question that affects the party to which I am proud to belong is that the Free List contains meat, and I recall the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when agricultural representatives were demanding that meat should be withdrawn from the Free List. In that speech, which was on the Third Reading of the Customs Duties Bill, I believe, he said that the farmers' representatives could not expect everything in 24 hours, and he asked who would have thought a few short months ago that a duty would be imposed upon butter, milk, fruit, cheese, and other agricultural and dairy products, but he added that they dared not risk imposing a duty on imported meat just then, and the agriculturists ought to be content for the moment. If that statement was in accord with the facts of the situation, surely only five weeks later, on the production of the Finance Bill, they have
not changed so much as to justify the inclusion of this Clause.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as a well-known constitutionalist, whether he thinks that this power ought to be taken out of the hands of Parliament and handed to this Committee of three, and we should like to hear the views also of the Minister of Education, for after all we are entitled to know whether the Cabinet are united on this proposal. I cannot conceive that they can be. I hesitate and almost tremble at the thought of creating friction on the Treasury Bench, but this Clause is vital as a constitutional question and as a question which may culminate in the taxation of that food which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only a few short weeks ago, said ought not to be taxed. For those reasons, and because we were disappointed that the Free List contained so few articles, we are supporting this Amendment to preserve for this House, not only the right to determine what articles shall be taxed, but the right to accept or reject any one of the recommendations of the Advisory Committee.
It has been suggested that, owing to the Ottawa Conference, this House may rise in the middle of July and may not be recalled until the latter end of October. For three months or three and a half months, therefore, the Advisory Committee will be sitting, and it may be that when Parliament comes together at the end of October, if this Amendment is rejected, we shall find meat—including beef, mutton, and bacon—precious stones and semi-precious stones, and every article now embodied in the Free List subject to a duty. We do not think that such a power ought to be conferred either on the Government as a Government or on the Advisory Committee, and I therefore support the Amendment.

Mr. McENTEE: I should like to use what little power of persuasion I have with the Government to reconsider their position in regard to Clause 6.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am afraid that I let the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) stray a little far. The hon. Member must remember that we are not yet discussing Clause 6 as a whole.

Mr. McENTEE: I did not intend to discuss Clause 6 generally, but the Clause deals with a Schedule in which there is a great number of articles, and that Schedule is known as the Free List. When it was under discussion in this House, all the industrial interests dependent on raw materials which were excluded from that list sought, by all kinds of means, such as lobbying in the House, circularising Members, writing to their local Members, and using every possible influence that they could, to get the raw material of their own particular industry included in the Free List. It struck me then that it depended very largely on the amount and force of pressure that the industry was able to bring on the Government whether or not an article was included in the Free List. The Government, on many of the things that ultimately were included, gave way with a very bad grace, but felt compelled to give way because of the power that was behind the demand; and it occurs to me that they are now seeking, by back-door methods, to get back that which they were compelled to give away when the Free List was under discussion.
It seems to me that this method is a very shady one. They suggest that three gentlemen, no doubt men with very high qualifications—I have nothing at all to say against either their ability to determine policy, up to a certain point, or their integrity—three super-men presumably, are to be given a power as great as has ever been enjoyed by Parliament, and Parliament is being asked to hand over the whole of its power in regard to this Free List to those three gentlemen outside, subject only to submission to the Department concerned.
When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was speaking, I was thinking of an ex-Member of Parliament, now transferred to another place, who used to sit on a back bench opposite, in 1922, 1923, and 1924, when I was here before, and I was trying to imagine what attitude that hon. Member, Sir Frederick Banbury, as I believe he was at that time, would have taken on a question like this. He was a Conservative in politics, an anti-Socialist, and I should say a Protectionist—he was certainly not a Free Trader—but on this matter of the control of Parliament there was certainly no Member of this House in my time who was more earnest
in his desire to maintain the power of Parliament and to see that it was not given to people outside. Since he was transferred to another place, there appears to have grown up a desire, which has become almost a habit, to give away all the rights and privileges of Parliament. It began by handing over powers to a Department, and now each Department has powers which it was never contemplated they should have a few years ago. Now we are asked to go a step further and to hand over a power, which ought to be maintained by Parliament, to three outside gentlemen whose recommendations will invariably be accepted by the Treasury.
I am surprised to see present so few of those Members who pressed the right hon. Gentleman to include their raw material in this Free List. After exert-ing all the power that they possessed, they were able to compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to include in the Free List many things that he had no desire to include at that time. In their absence an attempt is being made to get back the concession which the Chancellor was compelled to make to them in the early days of the Debate on the Free List. It is a striking thing that so many Members of Parliament who have personal interests in certain industries and are ardent Protectionists should express their desire to see everybody else's raw material taxed, but when it comes to the raw material of the industries in which they themselves are personally and financially interested, they go to the Chancellor almost in a procession begging for their raw material to be included in the Free List. The present position apparently is that the concessions that were then made will probably be taken away if this Clause is passed without the Amendment. I am sure that the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Education will agree with us in proposing this Amendment. It was obvious in the earlier discussions on the items to be included in the Free List that they would never agree to the exemption of meat from that list.

The CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. Member is coming to the point about which I warned him; he is dealing now with the next Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. McENTEE: The object of our Amendment is to prevent the three Mem-
bers of the Advisory Committee having the power to take articles out of the Free List and to put them in a new schedule under which they will be taxed. I feel sure that the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Education will be able to show by their presence in the Lobby with us that they have not forgotten their pledges in the election. The Government lead themselves into a position in which they cannot show a united front on anything, and I am afraid that on this question again they will have a bad division. I would like to see the division expressed in words by those Members of the Government who agree with us on this point. Apparently, however, they are not going to express their opposition to the Clause, and we hope to see them in the Division Lobby with us. Every Member of the Committee ought to be concerned about this point, for we are giving away to three outside people the right of Parliament to control most important matters. Such a step ought not to be taken by any Parliament, let alone a National Government which ought to stand for the interests of the whole nation. It cannot be said to be in the interests of the nation for three people, however eminent, to be given such an important power over the raw material of all industries. I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of accepting the Amendment; they will then not only do something that is right from the point of view of the nation, but give an opportunity to those in their own ranks to get out of an awkward difficulty.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I want to make a sincere appeal to the Government to consider whether it is not possible to give way in what after all is not such a serious matter with regard to the working of the Import Duties Act. The Amendment simply asks that before the recommendations of the Advisory Committee are put into force they shall be brought before Parliament. If they are put into force before they are passed by Parliament, there may be very serious consequences for industry. The worst thing that can happen to an industry is doubt as to its position. An industry may be in the position of having certain raw materials on the Free List and then suddenly finding them taken out. A few weeks ago there was some dislocation of trade
because of the sudden alteration of certain duties, and the same dislocation may take place if this Clause remains un-amended. For the sake of the few days that would be involved before putting into operation the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, the Government might well accept the Amendment. It is a perfectly reasonable request. When the Import Duties Act was going through we on these benches pointed out the serious consequences the application of these powers might have, and I and certain of my hon. Friends will certainly support this Amendment; but we should prefer the Government to acknowledge the justice of it. It would assist the easy working of industry by giving industrialists a certain continuity of policy which they can follow. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us that this Amendment can be accepted.

Mr. PRICE: I rise to support the Amendment, and I trust the Government will give it their serious consideration. There are two important reasons why we take strong exception to this Clause in the Finance Bill. When the duties were first considered by the House the requirements of various industries were taken into account, and the raw materials which those industries have to import were placed on the free list, and so, also, were many articles of food. In this free list are articles which affect the industry in which I am very deeply interested, the coal industry. For the time being pit props are in the free list, but we are going to allow three gentlemen, at a time, maybe, when Parliament is in recess for several months, to put a duty on pit props and other raw materials. More vital still, there are foods in the free list. Surely if Parliament, in its wisdom, thought the free list was the proper place for certain articles of food it is Parliament which ought to decide whether they shall be removed from the free list. Whatever recommendations the Advisory Committee may make, before they come into operation we in this House ought to have an opportunity of expressing our opinion upon them. Whilst I was fully aware when I came to the House that we should have a "ramp" as regards tariffs, I never dreamed that the Government would go so far as to take away from their own followers, as well as from us who are in
opposition, the right of voicing our opinions on these vital questions. We strongly protest against a Clause which hands over such powers to the Advisory Committee, and we appeal to the Cabinet to save the rights of this House, to allow Parliament itself to decide these very vital issues. Already one mistake has been made since the Import Duties Act was passed. It had to be remedied in a hurry by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at midnight. Are we certain that there will not be another scene of that description? The vital thing for which I stand is the right of Members of Parliament, sent here by the votes of the people, to express their opinion on these matters.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Two misapprehensions seem to inspire the speeches which have been delivered in support of this Amendment. The first is that three mysterious men, far removed from the control of this House, can, the moment this Clause is carried, impose a tax upon the necessaries of life of the people. Of course, that is a complete misapprehension. The second misapprehension is that this is a Clause to put a tax upon meat and wheat. That also is entirely erroneous. No such thing can be done. May I remind the Committee of the structure of the Import Duties Act? That Act, in its first Clause, imposed a 10 per cent. ad valorem duty upon all articles imported into this country, with certain exceptions. The exceptions were of two kinds: Goods which were taxed under some other Statute, or goods placed upon the Free List. An Advisory Committee was constituted, and was empowered to recommend increases of duties above the 10 per cent. and was empowered to recommend admissions to the Free List, but it was not empowered to recommend deductions from the Free List. It is that omission which this Clause rectifies.
I would call the attention of this Committee to the important procedure which runs right through the Import Duties Act. Whether the Advisory Committee make a recommendation to increase a duty or to remit it by putting the goods upon the Free List, the same method is pursued. Following the recommendation of the Advisory Committee
the Treasury has to approve that recommendation, and, if it so desires, can make an Order. The next stage is that unless that Order is ratified by the House of Commons within 28 days it ceases to have effect. That procedure runs right through the Import Duties Act. My hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment so persuasively did not propose, indeed, he was not empowered to propose, a change in that general procedure which I have described. He was of necessity content to leave it exactly as it is in general, only modifying it in one particular. What his Amendment cornea to is this: We are to leave that procedure exactly where it is—namely, a recommendation by the Advisory Committee, followed by an Order, followed by the approval of the House of Commons—in all respects except one, and that is that when a recommendation proposes to take a certain article out of the Free List the Order is not to become operative until the House of Commons sanctions it. What would be the effect of such an Amendment? It would be giving public notice that we intended to impose a duty. We should lay the Order upon the Table of the House, thus advising every importer that within 28 days, or maybe some longer period, a certain duty would be levied upon particular goods. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holds-worth) spoke of the dislocation of trade which would ensue if we did not accept this Amendment. It is nothing to the dislocation of trade which would be brought about if we did accept it.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: May I interrupt? It need not be for a period of 28 days; it could be within a period of 28 days. That difficulty can be got over.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Certainly, but it might be 28 days, and we have to have regard to what might be when we are legislating in this House; and I therefore say that this Amendment would disturb the whole symmetry of the Act. I understand the solicitude of my hon. and learned Friend for the privileges of the House of Commons. He seems to think that when goods are removed from the Free List, and thus made liable to a tax, that we, in this House of Commons, should enjoy some additional safeguard. The Government have already provided
that safeguard. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that all importations into this country dealt with in this Measure are subject to a 10 per cent. ad valorem duty for all time. These goods on the Free List, and which may be made liable to taxation in the future, are to have a special procedure before they become assessable to the 10 per cent. duty, but they are subject to an Order which can be fully debated in this House.
Therefore, to suggest that we are sacrificing any of our ancient rights is an exaggeration, because we are sacrificing none. It is not reasonable to suggest that the Government would promulgate an Order if it did not represent the will of the House of Commons. The object of following this procedure is to protect the House of Commons from external influences. We have admittedly embarked upon a fiscal change, and in embarking upon it we have had before us as a warning the tariffs of other countries, and we have tried to avoid the pitfalls to which they have succumbed. I appeal to the Committee, and even to those who disapprove of the change, to admit that, if the change had to be made—and it is the will of the people, it should be made—it has been accomplished in a circumspect manner, and I think we have here the most watertight and scientific system that the brain and good will of man can devise.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the proposal before us is the most watertight and scientific system that the brain and goodwill of man can devise, then, as someone has remarked, "God help the country!" The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that we were under two misapprehensions, first, that the Commissioners were imposing a tax, and, secondly, that this Clause put a tax on wheat and meat. I was not under either of those misapprehensions. I do not suggest that the Commissioners would impose a tax. What I do suggest, and what, I think, the Parliamentary Secretary will accept, is that the object of setting up the Commissioners is in order to take away from the Government and the House the determination of what shall be taxed. That is the basis of the whole policy of the Government. They say that this matter must be left to independent individuals to decide, and they are the builders of this great scientific
edifice which is going to be erected, pile upon pile of tariffs.
Is that not the basis and the intention of the Import Duties Act? If that is so, then our argument is perfectly sound that this proposal is intended to remove from the control of the House of Commons those matters which were expressly retained under the Import Duties Act. Under that Measure, as introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade the Government themselves decided that it was necessary and desirable that these matters should be removed from the Tariff Commission when it formulated its policy. Therefore it is idle for the Parliamentary Secretary to come forward with that argument, which means technically "no" but actually "yes." That is the object of the scheme, and the Order containing the long list of duties shows that it is the scheme. It is a mere farce for the Parliamentary Secretary to try to get out of this argument by putting forward an excuse of that sort.
Secondly, the Parliamentary Secretary says that it is not proposed to put a tax on meat or wheat. But that is precisely what can be done. It does not mean necessarily wheat and meat, but what is now proposed enables taxes to be imposed upon those things which are in the First Schedule of the Free List, and if the Government do not want taxes to be imposed upon those articles except by the will of Parliament, then the best course would be to delete this Clause altogether. Neither of those two arguments meets the case which has been put forward. The Parliamentary Secretary says that we accepted the procedure laid down under the Import Duties Act, and that now we are trying to alter it. He knows very well that the Government have so designed their Financial Resolutions that we cannot alter them. It is rather a false argument to say that we are only attempting to make this alteration, leaving the whole structure of the Import Duties Act untouched. We should not leave that Act untouched if we had an opportunity of touching it. The matters included in the First Schedule were dealt with in a completely different way under the Import Duties Act. The Government, in their infinite wisdom— this Government with a watertight scheme
—decided that the articles in the First Schedule should be dealt with differently, and we are only asking that the same treatment should be continued.
The change is being brought about by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not by us. In this Bill it is the Government who are making the change. At this moment nothing can be taken out of the First Schedule without the consent of this House. That has to be done by this House. It is the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government who are proposing that, in future, this shall not be done by the House, and it is absurd for the hon. Member to turn round now and say that we are proposing an anomaly which is contrary to the rest of the procedure. We are not doing anything of the sort. We are simply proposing that the present procedure, as far as possible, should be persisted in and continued. It is the Parliamentary Secretary who is the revolutionary, and it is he who wants to take these matters, which were considered to be of such vital importance that they were dealt with by the Government specially, and say, "Remit them to the Tariff Commission, let us have another omnibus Order with everything in it to come before this House 28 days after it has been in force." There are a great many people interested in the articles included in such Orders, and we are to be snowed under by such articles as bicycles, motor cars and everything else.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: They are not on the Free List.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that those are things which he himself has already said can-not be dealt with.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I was simply illustrating the class of goods which can be laid before the House of Commons.

The CHAIRMAN: If I understood the hon. and learned Member, he was illustrating the class of Order which can be made under the Import Duties Act as it is at present, and which cannot be altered by this procedure. The hon. and learned
Member must confine his remarks to the class of Order with which we are dealing under this Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I was dealing with the class of Order which can be made now if this Clause is passed, and which may include things which are not now included, such as bicycles, motor cars, and so on, which can be included under the existing Act. What I am objecting to is that we shall get thrown before the House an Order which covers things which can only come in by virtue of Section 6 and a whole mass of other things. Naturally, when the discussion comes one will be cluttered up with a lot of different considerations on a single Order and on that Order the House has got to say "yea" or "nay." If there were a special procedure the House would have to consider separately any question of removals from the Free List and that is what we desire. We do not desire them to be mixed up with a lot of other things.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I do not rightly understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment, but, as I understand it, the procedure he is advocating does not apply to those Orders which increase the general duty but applies simply and solely to Orders which take items out of the Free List.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is perfectly accurate and that is why I am seeking to change what at present exists in the Section. At present the Section does not distinguish in procedure between the two. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be a distinction in procedure.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but the hon. and learned Member's Amendment does not apply to the kind of Orders he was talking about and under which the Committee could recommend a tax. The Amendment only applies to Orders which take things out of the Free List. If the hon. and learned Member reads the Clause he is seeking to amend and sees what the Orders are to which this Amendment applies, I think he will find that they are only Orders to take out of the Free List—a type of Order which does not exist at present at all.

Sir S. CRIPPS: With great submission, the words "to take out of the Free List" are merely technical words that mean the imposition of a 10 per cent. tax.

The CHAIRMAN: But it does not mean adding an extra tax. Those are the. Orders of which the hon. and learned Member is speaking.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Again with great submission there is no reason whatsoever that I can see why a recommendation should not be made to remove, let us say, wheat from the Free List and impose a 10 per cent. further duty. That can perfectly well be done.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be so, but the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would not apply to it. The Amendment can only apply to Orders to take out of the Free List and not to an Order to put on an increased tax.

Sir S. CRIPPS: That is what I am trying to point out. If this is left as it is at present the position will be that an Order can be made to remove things out of the Free List and add another 10 per cent. duty to them, covering bicycles and other things as well. It can all be done under one Order, under the same procedure and in the same way, if it stands as it is. If the alteration which this Amendment would make is made, there would have to be a distinction, and it is upon that distinction that I am relying for the

purpose of my argument. I am saying it is vitally necessary that there should be that distinction because the things that Section 6 of the Clause seeks to do, namely, the removal from the Free List, is a matter which it is important should be dealt with specially under a special form of Order which has to come before the House in a special way. I was only seeking to point out that we are anxious that it should be impossible to deal with all these Orders under the same procedure. This House has already decided that the First Schedule is something which is not to be dealt with by the Tariff Commission. Although we cannot now get rid of Clause 6 itself, except by voting against it, which we shall do, if we are going to have Orders made under the Clause, then we should at least say that before they become operative this House must have an opportunity of dealing with them, not mixed up with a lot of other things, but in isolation by a special procedure which enables this House to consider them before any tax is put upon them or they are removed from the Free List.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 281.

Division No. 191.]
AYES.
[9.31 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Hirst, George Henry
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Batey, Joseph
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hopkinson, Austin
Parkinson, John Allan


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Janner, Barnett
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cove, William G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rea, Walter Russell


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Oarwen)


Dagger, George
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Thorns, William James


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Mabane, William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, David Reel (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley(Middlesbro', W).
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, George H. (Merthvr Tydvil)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Bossom, A. C.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Boulton, W. W.


Agnew, Lieut..Com. P. G.
Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Boyce, H. Leslie


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Bracken, Brendan


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George


Atkinson, Cyril
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Brockiebank, C. E. R.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blindell, James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Boothby, Robert John Graham
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Burnett, John George
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Petherick, M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (Wverh'pt'n, Bliston)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimst'd)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Potter, John


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Powell, Lieut. Col. Evelyn G. H.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pybus, Percy John


Carver, Major William H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cassels, James Dale
Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Castle Stewart, Earl
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ray, Sir William


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Home, Sir George Hopwood
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex Romf'd)
Reid, Capt. Cunningham-


Chalmers, John Rutherford
Inskip Rt. Hon Sir Thomas W. H.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Choriton Alan Ernest Leofric
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Robinson, John Roland


Clarke, Frank
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jamieson, Douglas
Rosbotham, S. T.


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Jennings, Roland
Ross, Ronald D.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Sir G. w. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ker, J. Campbell
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Colville, John
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Conant, R. J. E.
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Cook, Thomas A.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon M. H. R.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cooke, Douglas
Knebworth, Viscount
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Scone, Lord


Craven-Ellis, William
Leckie, J. A.
Selley, Harry R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
levy, Thomas
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lewis, Oswald
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Liddall, Walter S.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Slater, John


Denville, Alfred
Llewellin, Major John J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Dickie, John P.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Donner, P. W.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Doran, Edward
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dower, Captain A. V. G.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Duggan, Hubert John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Dunglass, Lord
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Stevenson, James


Eastwood, John Francis
McKie, John Hamilton
Stones, James


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Strauss, Edward A.


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, Thomas
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Maitland, Adam
Sutcliffe, Harold


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (Pd'gt'n, S.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Templeton, William P.


Fleiden, Edward Brockiehurst
Meller, Richard James
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Goff, Sir Park
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Goldie, Noel B.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Gower, Sir Robert
Morrison, William Shepherd
Wells, Sydney Richard


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Greene, William P. C.
Munro, Patrick
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
North, Captain Edward T.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
O'Connor, Terence James
Wise, Alfred R.


Hales, Harold K.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Withers, Sir John James


Hanley, Dennis A.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Womersley, Walter James


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Patrick, Colin M.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Harbord, Arthur
Pearson, William G.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Hartland, George A.
Peat, Charles U.



Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Captain Austin Hudson and Lieut.-




Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that any recommendation or order made in pursuance of this Section shall not apply to wheat in grain or meat as defined in the First Schedule.
We wish to retain for wheat and meat their place on the Free List. We regret that the Government have used their overwhelming majority to reject the last Amendment. I am sure that this has been a disappointment to many Liberals who were elected in good faith to form part of a National Government, and who have been scandalously betrayed in this regard. As the Clause stands, any of the articles which are now on the Free List may be subjected to duties on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind how very strongly the President of the Board of Trade, for example, dwelt upon the inviolability of the list in the Schedule, and, indeed, the Schedule to the Import; Duties Act itself almost states that there is to be no withdrawal of articles from the list set forth in the Act. We are grateful to the Chairman of the Advisory Committee for his help in elucidating the Committee's exact position. As I understand the position now the Advisory Committee has had conferred upon it very clear and distinct additional powers. Previously it was only untitled to recommend additional duties upon dutiable articles, and there were certain commodities, set out one by one in a long and varied list, which were to be free from attack by the Committee. Now we understand that at any time, without any explanation, any or all of those articles can be removed from the Free List, can be made subject to a general tariff of 10 per cent., and can then, without a word of discussion in the House, be made subject to additional duties on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee.
We now find that although there are two stages of procedure—first, the removal from the Free List of any of the articles scheduled, and secondly, the addition of duties beyond the limit provided in the Act—all this can be done almost in one bound, so that a commodity which is now free may become subject, on entering this country, to an ad valorem duty of 50 or 60 per cent. or even more. I
regard that as a distinct breach of the confidence of the very large number of electors in all parts of the country who voted for National candidates because they were assured that there was not to be general Protection, and that certainly there was to be no taxation on the people's food.
This committee has been authorised to select articles for taxation, and it can do just as it likes subject to general approval in the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was quite right when he said this committee can make any change it likes in the list without a word of discussion taking place in the House. That is bad enough, but what is worse is that the House is now setting up a body of people with almost unlimited powers who will act, not as assessors of taxes, not as adjudicators on the claim of this or that commodity to protection, but as auxiliaries to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who can call upon them in the expectation of receiving assistance in balancing his Budget. This is perhaps the only Budget of its kind that has ever been passed. In previous Budgets we knew exactly what taxation was to be imposed for the following year, but this time no one knows. We have a skeleton Budget presented to us and, side by side with it, there is the possibility of an immense additional charge in the form of duties upon imported commodities which may be brought to the assistance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in balancing his Budget should it fall short of his expectation. That is a very serious departure from the principles of taxation which we have followed in the past.
The Chancellor is much more ingenious than his predecessors. Previous Chancellors have clumsily adopted, more or less openly, dodges for balancing their Budgets. They have gone robbing hen roosts and looking for resources in all kinds of unexpected places and have claimed credit for the dodges that they have adopted. The present Chancellor does nothing of the kind. He has not the faintest idea what deficit he may have at the end of next year, but he has appointed to his aid a body of people who will act as highwaymen, who have authority to hold up to ransom unsuspicious victims who come their way and strip
them of their possessions. It is a most unheard of thing. It is a kind of farming out of the taxation system to three gentlemen who have no responsibility and no special qualifications for the duties which they have to perform. There have been emphatic pronouncements. It has been denied that the President of the Board of Trade made any pledge in the House. I will read something that he himself said:
I was asked specifically in my constituency by Liberal and Conservative supporters what was my attitude on this subject and I stated quite emphatically that I was against the taxation of our staple foods. As our staple foods I mentioned specifically wheat and meat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1932; col. 929, Vol. 261.]
We want to help the right hon. Gentleman to keep his pledge to his Liberal and Conservative electors, without whose support he would not now be in the House. We want to help him, in spite of himself, to be loyal to these constituents, and we want him to be able to meet them by leaving these two commodities out of any possible Measure of taxation. This, is not only a matter of Parliamentary probity and loyalty to his constituents and fidelity to his pledges. It is a matter of very serious importance to the working people, who, in the main, will be called upon to pay these taxes. Of the total expenditure on food, 34 per cent. is expenditure on meat and 9 per cent. on cereal foods. A sum in the aggregate of nearly £200,000,000 is spent on meat and wheat. In these days, when the economy Measures of the Government have reduced purchasing power to such a low standard, these two commodities should be allowed to come in without any addition to their price. Already there is a tax on bread. There is a quota payment on imported wheat. There is already £6,000,000 per annum chargeable on the people's bread. We insist that no 'addition should be made to the price paid for meat.
Every single Member of the Government has more or less declared against the taxation of food. I do not think the Lord President of the Council has been quite explicit on the matter, but Lord Snowden, a very important Member of. the Government, has declared against it time and time again. He is strangely silent in these days, stowed away in that
refuge of tired politicians, but I feel sure that, if he found his voice again and was tempted to reveal his mind on the subject, he would speak very strongly against this further taxation of food. We expect the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Education to do something more than vote against it. They are not ciphers. They are not automata, here to vote only. They are here to speak. I remember the President of the Board of Education, when fighting for Liberal principles, often rose to his feet and voluntarily conducted the defence of those principles night after night. He does not discharge his obligation by walking into the Lobby now and again with us. His place is to speak. The acid test of all this is the taxation of food. Liberals should declare to-night whether they will continue to support a National Government which put this very heavy burden upon food coming into the country.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made a comparison between direct taxation in pre-War days and the proportion of direct taxation in the present Budget, and said how much more solicitous were the Government of the common people's wages than the pre-War Governments in which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said that direct taxation then accounted for 57 per cent., and that in 1932 the National Government were raising by direct taxation 61 per cent. I am not sure whether he has declared what proportion of indirect taxation is to be charged in the present Budget. I think that we shall find that the proportion of indirect taxation at the end of this year may be very much higher than it was at the beginning of the year. If it is not, what is the object of all this, and why do the Government press for these powers in the Finance Bill?
There is the possibility of a considerable addition to the burden of indirect taxation. Food taxes are taxes upon poor people. A very much larger proportion of the income of the poor people goes in food. It does not require a very close investigation to prove it. A family living upon an income of £100 a year may spend 50, 60 or 65 per cent. of the income on food, but that same family with an income raised to £400 a year would spend a very considerably smaller proportion of
their income in that way. The larger the income, when an income runs into thousands of pounds, although the recipients are called upon to pay a larger measure of direct taxation, the indirect taxation is much smaller in proportion. Let the right hon. Gentleman not deceive himself. Let him realise that, while it is true that before the War 57 per cent. of the income was paid by direct taxpayers, and that 61 per cent. of the present Budget is paid by direct taxpayers, more than the whole of the taxation paid by direct taxpayers is an additional burden due to the War, and has to be borne year after year. £300,000,000 has to be paid for the use of money spent during the War. Out of that amount a sum almost equal to the Income Tax and Super-tax goes largely to the class of people who pay direct taxation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The working man has to pay a bigger proportion of his income in the purchase of food, and men whose incomes are limited because of the taxation of food are driven to obtain cheaper food, because they must secure food in adequate quantities.
10.0 p.m.
The result will not be what hon. Members opposite anticipate. They will not buy more from the agriculturist but will be forced, because of high prices, to obtain cheaper supplies of food and to buy in larger proportion foreign food which the Government say they are anxious to keep out of the country. The inducement of all this will be for the consumer and the lower wage-earner to have recourse to markets where cheaper food can be obtained, and it will be cheaper food from abroad. The inclusion of these commodities in the Free List has given great consolation to people in the National Government, but the possibility of the withdrawal of these commodities has taken away from a great many supporters of the National Government the last vestige of confidence in the Government. It is unjust to put a heavier burden of taxation on the people's food. The people of the country will resent it, and they will do so more and more as time passes. The Government to-night are preparing for their own end. I can see the halter round their neck. I can see the Lord President of the Council meeting his political Waterloo, after which he will be banished to St. Helena, a bourne from which he will not return.

Sir P. HARRIS: There is an Amendment upon the Order Paper in my name dealing with a larger aspect extending exclusion to all foodstuffs, and in some ways I should have liked to have discussed the broader issue. As far as I am concerned, however, I am prepared to deal with the two articles, the exclusion of which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite because the Amendment raises perhaps the most important items. Taking wheat in particular, I see no reason whatever why the Government should not accept the exclusion of wheat, because the Minister of Agriculture in his wisdom has taken another course deliberately for dealing with the question of the price of wheat from the point of view of the farmers of the country by a system of quotas. We had a very long and interesting discussion upon the Bill before it became an Act of Parliament, and the Minister convinced the majority of the House that the right system with which to deal with wheat was by way of quota, though I did not take that line. That being so, the Committee and the Government should have no hesitation in agreeing to the exclusion of wheat. I have looked up the report dated April, 1932, dealing with the Import Duties. In page 9, paragraph 17, the Commission seemed inclined to think that on the whole they did not wish particularly to deal with food. They said:
Food products are of outstanding importance by reason of the extent to which they enter into the cost of living; no less than 60 per cent. of the Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index being based upon retail food prices. While we recognise the desirability of stimulating the production in this country of many food products now figuring largely in the national imports, we have to take cognisance of the action that is being taken, or is known to be in contemplation, by the Government in this direction otherwise than by way of Import Duties.
It seems to me that, on the top of that remark, there is a very strong case for taking from the Committee the responsibility of sitting in judgment on the question of meat and wheat. Agriculture and stock-raising have been going through a very difficult time and it is only human nature that, in due course, this overworked committee will have to survey the whole of the complex industrial problem of the country and the whole question of the raw material of industry. Therefore, we should take from their cognisance the responsibility of sitting in
judgment on the case of the stock breeders and the taxing of imported meat. They will have their hands full enough without being troubled with that case. Therefore, it would be wise, having regard to the state of public opinion in these difficult times, to remove these two classes of goods from those that can be taken from the Free List.
The total importation of meat represents a sum of over £90,000,000. There is mutton and lamb. We import something like £18,000,000 worth, of which £10,000,000 worth comes from New Zealand, £3,500,000 worth from Australia, and £4,000,000 from the Argentine. One hon. Member was not satisfied that foreign mutton alone should be excluded, but he wanted to exclude also mutton from the Dominion of New Zealand. It would be very poor consolation to the consumers of mutton in this country to find that a small quantity of foreign mutton was being excluded while New Zealand and Australian foreign lamb and mutton was pouring into the country. The case in regard to mutton is unanswerable. The real case is the beef problem. There is a large quantity of beef coming into the country. The total imports amount to something like £25,500,000 worth. The largest amount comes from the Argentine in the form of chilled beef to the amount of about £16,000,000. A further £1,500,000 worth comes from the same country in the form of frozen meat. Australia comes up a bad second with £1,750,000 worth. Therefore, the greater part of our beef imports come from the Argentine.
I do not want to go into the controversial question of whether the Argentine is a very good customer of ours, that a very large amount of British capital is invested there, with a very insufficient security at the present time, and that a large part of the trade in this particular product is in British hands. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that £18,000,000 or £19,000,000 worth of beef comes from the Argentine. Some hon. Members have received a very interesting pamphlet, in the form of a message, from a very enterprising gentleman who explains that at the last General Election, like many other people, he supported the National Government. In
that document he deals with the question of home-killed beef. He says:
No market is more easily over-supplied than that for home-killed beef. The whole difficulty is that there are not sufficient people in the country who can afford the price that the English producer must obtain.
I speak with more than 25 years' experience of working-class people in the East End of London, and it may be a surprise to many Members to know that my constituents much prefer to buy British home-killed beef. The only reason why they do not buy it is that they cannot afford to pay the price. Therefore, they have to buy a substitute, a satisfactory substitute, in the form of Argentine chilled beef. In the pamphlet in question the gentleman says:
In producing half the beef requirements of this country, British farmers are already producing too much beef to supply the available market. It is nonsense to talk about producing more in order to compel the working people to take more British beef at 100 per cent. increase in cost over the imported. They have not the money to buy it.
I can confirm that statement.
The only possible course is to adjust production to the quantity that can be sold at a profit. Indeed, in view of the great numerical disproportion between the rich and poor in this country, the British farmer is doing exceedingly well to be able to supply 57 per cent. of the beef requirements of the nation at the high price he is compelled to charge for it owing to his high costs. … The average price of chilled beef in Smithfield Market in 1931 was 4⅝d. per lb. …. Who would dare to suggest that the cost of beef should be raised to a figure that it could only be afforded as an occasional luxury by the working classes. [Interruption.] 
They are not my words. They are by Sir Edmund Vestey.
That is what must happen if butchers are to be forced to buy British beef by tariffs or quotas at 8⅝d. per lb. in place of the South American product costing our working people 4⅝d. per lb. Obviously the wholesale price cannot be increased 100 per cent. without increasing the retail price still more.
Those are the views of a man who is outside politics. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are very suspicious. He makes no secret of the fact that he has much money invested in South America. Is that wrong? Why not? At any rate, in his particular case his particular interests happen to synchronise with the interests of the bulk of our consuming
people. Our working classes in all these hard times, with years of unemployment and depression in the coal trade and other industries, have been able to have cheap and abundant meat supplies because of the policy of free imports, and I suggest, whatever may be the advantage of a tariff for dealing with industrial depression, it is not wise or expedient at a time of great industrial depression and economic disturbance to put into the hand of three gentlemen the responsibility of deciding between the interests of the stock breeders on the one hand and of the great consuming millions on the other. I suggest that common wisdom and common statesmanship should lead us to exclude these two particular articles. I have complete confidence in the integrity and character of the members of the committee and am satisfied, that on the whole, we could not have a more efficient tribunal. Articles of food which are vital to the well-being of our 40,000,000 population should be excluded from the deliberations of this tribunal at a time of economic depression. The Amendment does not decrease the power of the House of Commons nor does it exclude the responsibility of the Government to deal with the whole agricultural question. In view of their pledges and their promises that they would exclude certain articles of food from taxation the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment and thus strengthen their position in the country and the status of the Tariff Advisory Committee.

Mr. HOWARD: The speeches of the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) assumed that the only object of a tariff is to impose additional taxation upon our people, whereas the tariffs which the present Government are carrying through have a different purpose. By the imposition of a scientific tariff we desire to see a revival of trade and industry in this country and throughout the Empire. We have been sent to this House to examine the best method that can be adopted for the restoration of British industry. The appointment of the Tariff Advisory Committee is futile unless they are allowed to investigate all the interests which come before them and make their recommendations. The hon. Member for
Gower has said that we have already imposed £6,000,000 additional taxation upon bread by the Wheat quota, but we all know that the price of bread to-day has been reduced by one halfpenny per loaf. We also know that as a result of the tariffs which have been imposed over the last five months the retail prices of food and clothing have continually decreased, disproving utterly all the fears which hon Members opposite continually conjure up.
We have been told that this is only a method of relieving the burdens of the rich and protecting the receivers of interest on War Debt. The statement that the receivers of interest on War Debt are only rich people is utterly absurd. Hon. Members opposite know that the solvency of many of their own trade unions depend on the receipt of this interest. Only a few years ago the National Union of Railwaymen boasted that it received annually over £65,000 a year in interest on the money which it had invested in War Debt. Most of the co-operative societies receive interest upon securities in War Loans, and building societies and co-operative investment societies have also money invested in War Loan; and these are societies which are run and controlled by hon. Members opposite. Therefore, to talk of this War Debt as being owned entirely by members of the capitalist class, is to ignore the facts.
There is no need to worry about an increase in the price of food as a result of placing in the hands of the tariffs Advisory Committee the suggestions that we are discussing. Wheat and meat can be used for bargaining purposes without imperilling the cost of living at all. There is a great disparity between wholesale-and retail prices, and if we can use some of that very wide margin to reinvigorate agriculture in Canada, Australia, Africa, or even in this country, without putting any further burdens on retail prices, we shall have done one of the jobs which the electors sent us here to do—to balance our Budget and do away with the adverse balance of trade, and bring some hope of employment to our people.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The Committee is entitled to hear from the Government how the proposal now being considered squares with the plans that the Government are forming for the negotiations at
Ottawa. The Committee has not yet heard any comprehensive statement as to why this proposal is made at the present time. One would have thought that the Government would have tried to keep this power in its hands until the Ottawa Conference has met. It has no right to prejudice what the Advisory Committee will do. The Advisory Committee may take a step that cuts right across any intentions that the Government may have with respect to Ottawa. The point has already been made that there seems to be no coherence in the Government's policy. At one time we are told that quotas are the proper way for dealing with wheat. Then we are told that wheat should be dealt with as a part of the negotiating conditions with the Canadians and Australians. On top of that we have the complicated and contradictory policy of handing over the importation of this important product to a body over which this House has no effective control at all.
There may be a case for the taxation of wheat and meat. If so, let us have it; we have not had it yet. We are surely entitled to ask the Government to place before the Committee some considered plan of its intentions with respect to these commodities. It might quite properly be argued that the Government are not in a position to disclose their plans until the Ottawa Conference has met. Then why take this step % This step cannot be considered as a consistent part of any plan, because the action that the Government may find it necessary to take with regard to the importation of wheat and meat must depend entirely on what happens at Ottawa. Therefore, apart from the old question as to whether the food of the people should be taxed or not, it puzzles us on this side to know what coherent, integrated body of doctrine is animating the Government's policy. The Lord President of the Council is surely under an obligation to tell us what he has in his mind. I do not know whether the rumours are correct that the Lord President of the Council does not intend to go to Ottawa. There are ominous rumours in circulation that the right hon. Gentleman has distinct fears that the Ottawa Conference will prove to be a white elephant, and that, having been associated already with one white elephant on the other side of the Atlantic, he is
anxious not to be associated with another. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the high hopes which have been raised about the Ottawa Conference have no foundation in fact? Are we to assume that the system of scientific Imperial tariffs advanced to the electorate at the last election as the justification for tariffs has now to be abandoned and that the Lord President of the Council, anxious not to be associated with failure at Ottawa, is sending his colleagues there to negotiate the failure in order that his own political stature may not be impaired thereby?
I think this Committee is entitled to know what is the policy of the Government. The Government cannot have it three ways. They want to have a wheat quota; they want to send this matter to the Advisory Committee, and, as they have told us again and again, they want to go to Ottawa with a free hand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that it is impossible to enter into trade agreements with any nations outside the Empire because to do so might prejudge the results of the Ottawa Conference. But surely that applies also to the Tariff Advisory Committee— unless, indeed, it is merely a sub-committee of the Cabinet, unless its judicial impartiality is a fiction, unless the Advisory Committee is simply to do what the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants it to do. Are we to assume that Sir George May is merely the henchman of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and that the Government know what the Committee's representations will be before they are made, or are we to assume that Sir George May and the Committee are free and independent people, ready to give objective and dispassionate consideration to this issue? If so, they might produce a scheme very inconsistent with the ideas of the Ottawa Conference. Their recommendations might be as embarrassing to Ottawa as any agreement arrived at with a foreign nation.
10.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman must not abuse the House of Commons. Members of the Conservative party must ask their own Front Bench to treat them with more respect. At the moment they are being treated like a lot of docile sheep. Any sort of proposition put by the Government is received with credulous
applause by the Members of the Conservative party, no matter how contradictory the proposals may be. We do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to take us into his confidence about Ottawa. We do not expect that. It would be inconsistent with the obligations of His Majesty's Government and with the autonomy of the Dominions to prejudge the results of the councils at Ottawa. But the Dominions must be viewing our discussions this evening with great disquietude, because the Government are revoking an instrument of legislative authority which will act in contradistinction to the purposes of the Government in co-operation with the Dominions. I therefore suggest that the Lord President of the Council must give us a reply or, to go back to my earlier point, are we to assume that he has now abandoned Ottawa? Are we to assume that it has already been brought to his ears that the pressure of American finance in Canada is stronger than Canada's sentiment towards the British Empire, and that he knows that the obstacles to be overcome at Ottawa are so serious that he cannot hope to obtain from Ottawa any results which will satisfy the clamour of the hordes behind him on those benches?
Hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House treated with derision the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that a good deal of British capital had been sunk in the Argentine. Any study of our trade returns will show that without the invisible exports of this country we should be in an extremely parlous condition. We have sunk about £540,000,000 in the Argentine over the last century, and in so far as our trade returns are balanced, it is largely as a consequence of the receipts from those countries. What will be the effect on our balance of trade if we impoverish the Argentine? You cannot expect the Argentine to pay the dividends upon £540,000,000 and prevent the Argentine selling her products to the biggest market in the world. You cannot have it both ways, and the difficulty with hon. and right hon. Members who believe 60 ingenuously in the efficacy of tariffs to solve our difficulties is that they want it every way.
The hon. Member for South Islington (Mr. T. Howard) not only wants tariffs to promote home industries, but he wants them as a bargaining power. With the Argentine, I submit, we have a case, not to put tariffs upon Argentine products, but to use our marketing power with the Argentine to obtain in the Argentine larger markets for British exports, but you cannot argue that the purpose of these tariffs is to increase the production of British wheat and meat and, at the same time, to allow the Argentine to send meat here on condition that we send our exports there. We sent a royal ambassador to the Argentine a little time ago for the purpose of pushing British products there. The Argentine is a country of great possibilities which provides a market for British exports second to none, and it has this peculiar advantage, that the Argentine is a producer of primary products and a consumer of manufactured goods. This country has one great asset left in its competition with the rest of the world. It has an asset, not so much in our grass lands, not so much in our pasture or in our agrarian areas, but in the artisan skill of practically 3,000,000 unemployed men. We have a larger body of trained artisans than any other nation of the game size.
Our future success and prosperity depend fundamentally upon finding for those skilled artisans markets for the products of their hands, and the market cannot be found exclusively inside Great Britain. It must be found by sending manufactured goods to countries in exchange for primary products from those countries, [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here!"] That is a proposition to which every Socialist, Liberal and Conservative subscribes, because we know that only by Great Britain occupying an important place in the world's division of labour can we hope to maintain our standard of life. It is the contention of Conservative Members that a market for our manufactured goods can be found exclusively inside the agrarian areas of the British Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If that is not the contention, then there is no meaning in Imperial Preference.
Now that hon. Members are coming nearer to the realities of Imperial Preference, they are realising that the 16,000,000 people in Australia and New Zealand, no
matter how high their purchasing power may be, cannot provide adequate markets for our manufactured goods. The 400,000,000 people in India are expected to provide a market for our products by producing cheap textile goods. Everybody who looks at this problem seriously knows that the political circumstances of India will prevent the sinking there in a secure manner of large volumes of capital for a long time to come. In fact, one of the problems of capitalism in the 20th century is that, though China, India and Russia are the three great areas for the markets of the surplus of the industrialised areas, it is not possible to go to Russia because she is doing the job itself, and it is not possible to go to India and China because of political disturbances. That is one of the primary causes of the aggravation of our industrial crisis. If those areas could be suitably opened up for our products, the fate of capitalism could be postponed for another decade. It is because of the difficulties in those countries that we cannot export there and we are driven to find a market for our manufactured goods among the white population of the British Empire, which is entirely adequate for the purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not exclusively."] I say, not exclusively. [HON. MEMBERS: "You did not say that before!"] Pardon me, I said that the nearer the Imperialists came to this issue the more inadequate the Empire market proved to be. The interjections of hon. Members are a vindication of my position. They start off by being Imperialists, but they end up by being "bargainists." I can imagine no more unwieldy instrument for bargaining than a Tariff Advisory Committee, which necessarily cannot have regard to these questions of high public policy, but must have regard only to the parochial considerations of Great Britain. If we are to admit that Scandinavia, the Argentine and places like that must necessarily be woven into the economic fabric of this country, it cannot be done in the way which hon. and right hon. Members are suggesting.
If that is the proposition, then in heaven's name let the Government put before us and the nation a coherent and integrated plan to that end. As it is we are having nothing but a hotch-potch, a mess up. Why? Because it is apparent
to any student of politics that a National Government constituted as this is can never produce such a plan. The Conservatives may have a plan. If so, let the Conservatives put their plan forward. At the moment they cannot do so. They are ham-strung on the Front Bench. The damage that Liberal Members are now doing to the country is not merely by giving the public countenance of Radical thought to reactionary principles, but by preventing the Conservative party from putting its own indigenous plan before the country. That is assuming, as very few people have a right to assume, that they have any plan at all. And if it be true that the Conservatives have no plan, what right have the Liberals to shield that mental bankruptcy? Either they are preventing the Tories from bringing forward a plan essentially Imperialist and Conservative in character or they are hiding the mental bankruptcy of the Conservatives and perpetuating their hold upon the public esteem. Therefore, it is not enough for the Liberals merely to go into the Lobby, it is not enough for the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) to come here and tell us that inside the National Government he is preventing them from becoming brutally reactionary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Inter-party relations may be highly appropriate to a Second Reading speech, but they are not in order on this Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: My principal difficulty in making a speech is in following the example of some of my illustrious colleagues. Only back benchers are prevented from discussing inter-party questions. Front benchers always have liberty to do so. What I want to point out is that on this issue we are having speeches from the Liberal benches condemning the policy of the Government which they support, and I suggest to the right hon. Member for Darwen that the sands are running out and that he will soon have to choose upon which side of the fence he is going to be.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The future of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) may be a topic for another occasion. What we are now discussing is whether wheat and meat shall be left in the Free List.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not in order for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) to argue, when we are discussing wheat and meat, that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in this matter is calculated to show how the Government are acting and should not the Committee be told the policy of the Government? Surely hon. Members are entitled to arraign the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen so far as he is preventing the House and the country—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That argument is more appropriate to a Second Reading Debate, but we are now limited to the Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen has said that he does not support the taxation of food, and that it is not being done in a proper way. This policy of shifting the responsibility on. to the Advisory Committee is a bad one, and is not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale entitled to criticise a Cabinet Minister who, in fact, keeps the policy back, and prevents us from properly debating the food taxes? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen is using his power in the Cabinet to keep us hanging in the air midway between the two policies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not the Amendment.

Mr. BEVAN: We are asking what is the policy of the Government, and what are they going to do? I would like to know if it is not in order for a bewildered back bencher to inquire what really is the policy of the Government? Up to the present we have been successful in ascertaining the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, and we have been told what is the policy of the President of the Board of Trade, who gave a promise to his constituency that he would not support the taxation of wheat and meat. I suggest with great sincerity that we must try to keep politics on a decent plane. What right have the Tories to make use of the President of the Board of Trade as a decoy duck? One of the guarantees that the country was to be protected against duties upon wheat and meat was that we
were to have this honourable, scrupulous paragon of public virtue, the President of the Board of Trade, as a Member of the Government. Another guarantee was that we were to have the doctrinnaire, the stringent Home Secretary as another Member of the Government. The third guarantee was that we were to have an impeccable Free Trader, Lord Snowden, as a Member of the Government. Those were the assurances that people were given at the General Election, and it was because those right hon. Gentlemen went before the electorate and gave those assurances that so many Conservatives are sitting in this House to-day with working class votes. The promise given to the electors by the President of the Board of Trade that he would not tax meat or wheat was not worth the wind he wasted upon it.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen still has some shreds of public virtue left, and I want to know, is he going to allow them to be completely destroyed before he makes a break with the Government? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen, and to all the Radical-minded Members of the Government, that the sands are running out. It is high time that they decided on which side of the fence they are going to stand, because before very long they will have nothing to stand upon. The Conservatives will have taken everything away. It is true that they are on a fighting retreat, but upon what line are they going to retire? Where are the fortifications? One by one every Radical principle is being sacrificed. I suggest that if they have any hopes at all of seeing far-sighted Radically-minded men, with a 20th century appreciation of 20th century problems, ever coming together and saving this country from the kind of pur-blined myoptic Imperialism we are now being treated to, they will have to come out pretty soon or the country will wash its hands of them completely.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In the course of the torrentially eloquent speech to which we have just listened I heard twice the accusation that the Government had no "coherent and integrated" policy. I think I do no injustice to the adjectives. Where was the coherent and integrated relevance of that speech? Dextrous, certainly, but, as I do not wish to
misjudge the importance of it, I would like to ask my hon. Friend this question, because he did not make it plain: Is he in favour of tariffs or is he opposed to them?

Mr. A. BEVAN: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question. I would submit to the Committee that it is not the policy of the Opposition that is under discussion.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I agree, but the hon. Gentleman was objecting to our policy. [Interruption.] I want to know to what aspects of that policy he objects? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was listened to with great patience, and he is entitled to have his case made plain. As he does not answer the question whether or not he is in favour of tariffs, will he tell me whether or not he is in favour of Preference. Or is it perhaps to the Orders-in-Council that he takes exception? Can he really not give a satisfactory answer to any of these questions? No. The Committee may have forgotten the epoch-making fact that our policy is very largely modelled on the ideas of my hon. Friend. He wrote a book, a very able and lucid book in which he never used two adjectives where one would do. His book was called "A National Policy"—a National policy for a National Government in a National emergency. What we had to do according to this book—and it had to be done at once—was to legislate by Orders-in-Council. Three Wise Men were to do it. [Interruption].
My hon. Friend said that we must legislate by Order-in-Council, that we must tax imports, including meat, and that we must give preferences to the Dominions. I understand why my hon. Friend included in his speech to-night so many adjectives. The dictionary might be searched for appropriate adjectives to describe an hon. Gentleman who asked of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade where is his political probity, when he, having put forward this identical policy, ventures to come down to the House and, for political ends, to attack it—[Interruption]—and to attack it in a national emergency. My hon. Friend said that there may be a case for the taxation of meat and wheat, but we have not heard it. That case has been presented by my hon. Friend. But when
the Government desire to present a case, if the occasion should arise for the taxation of wheat and meat, they will come here to this Box and advance their arguments. That is not the case that is being advanced from this side to-night, and it is not fair, it is not an illustration of political probity, to paint for the electorate the picture that has been painted tonight, that we are going to add additional imposts to their household budgets by the passage of this Clause.
This Clause is not, as it has been represented to be by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, a betrayal. If we had not introduced this Clause it would have been a betrayal. On the Second Reading of the Import Duties Bill—and no exception was taken to the statement at the time—the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he was going to move this Clause. He tried to move, during the Committee stage of the Import Duties Bill, a Clause empowering the Advisory Committee to recommend subtractions from the Free List, but it was ruled out of order by the Chair. My right hon. Friend then said, "I will move that Clause on the Finance Bill," and nobody raised one murmur of objection at the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "They could not do it."] The hon. Gentleman opposite went into the Lobby with us after the statement was made. It was because my light hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that the Advisory Committee would have this power that he was enabled to concede many Amendments moved from several quarters of the House. He said, "You are urging me to add to the Free List. I have not had time to examine all these items; the Advisory Committee has not had time to examine them; but I will accept them and put them in the Free List temporarily if the House will agree that the Committee shall have power to subtract them after a case has been made out." Therefore I say that, far from this Clause being a betrayal, it would be a distinct breach of faith if the Government were not to come down to the House of Commons to-night and move it.

Mr. McENTEE: With whom?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With the House of Commons.

Mr. McENTEE: Not with the electors.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made this belated discovery about the cost of living—

Mr. McENTEE: Not with the electors.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman who so persistently interrupts me, from a side of the House which claims that this is going to increase the cost of living, was this afternoon himself quoting the Macmillan Committee.

Mr. McENTEE: On a point of Order. I did not say any such tiling and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the statement.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. McENTEE rose—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Minister refuses to give way, the hon. Member has no business to stand up.

Mr. McENTEE: I ask the Minister if he will give way?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I want to answer the hon. Member that he is not in a position to deny the words I attribute to him because I have not yet attributed them.

Mr. McENTEE: I made an interjection on the question of betrayal. I asked, "Of whom?" and the hon. Gentleman said, "Of this House." My reply was that I was speaking of the electors. On that he spoke about something I said to-day, which had nothing to do with my interjection, and attributed a dishonourable motive to me.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member is a point behind in the argument. I said that, far from this Clause being a betrayal, the absence of it would have been a betrayal, because the House of Commons was promised by the Government that the Clause would be introduced. I then passed to the subject of the cost of living and remarked that hon. Members opposite, and notably the hon. Member who so persuasively moved the Amendment, complained that this would add to the cost of living. I was then about to ask hon. Members opposite if they were in favour of raising the price level or not, because certainly the cost of living has never been lower since the War than it is
to-day. What producers are concerned with is not so much the cost of living as the chance of living. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot, in Second Reading Debates, speak in favour of raising the price level, as many of them have done, and when a chance is given to producers—and it is not given under this Clause—of producing goods at a reasonable price, attack the Government for raising the cost of living.
This proposal is not in the least degree concerned with a tax on either meat or wheat. It is the fulfilment of an undertaking. When Ottawa comes—in which the hon. Member who spoke last is so interested—it will be for the Government to make its proposals. Neither there nor here will anything be done behind the backs of the House of Commons. Which way does the hon. Member want it? He complained at one moment that the supporters of the Government were docile sheep. At the next, he complained that they were a clamorous horde. Which way does he want it? I will tell him which way he will have it. This House of Commons, having been elected by the nation to get it through its difficulties, will support any measure introduced by a Government that is determined to solve our problems.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. Gentleman has resorted to the common trick of challenging the policy of the Opposition when unable to explain his own. He has shown conclusively that my hon. Friend is fully justified. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to realise that the Amendment deals with the question of the taxation of wheat and meat. He seemed to think he was addressing the Committee on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." May I remind him that the question under discussion at the. moment is not whether he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer are fulfilling some duty to the Committee in bringing forward Clause 6, but whether the operation of the Clause should be so limited as to exclude two specific substances—wheat and meat. It is not a question as to whether there should excluded all the other list of substances which were forced upon the Government during the discussion of the Imports Duties Bill by the clamouring hordes of that time who now may have become passive sheep. It often happens that once the sheep dog gets into good
form he turns what appears to be a clamorous herd into a perfectly quiet and docile flock. On this occasion docility has come perhaps with satisfaction.
But the hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that the question we are discussing now is a question which has a great deal of relevance as far as Ottawa is concerned. As we understand it the object of the Tariff Commission is to remove from the political arena the question of the fixation of tariffs upon the subject matters which come within the purview of the Commission. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head now and agrees with me, so that we are agreed that the object of giving the Commissioners the power to remove these articles—wheat and meat —from the Free List is in order that they may decide outside any political question as to whether taxes should be put upon wheat or meat. How is that going to react upon the policy—if there is one—of the Government? When the Government go to Ottawa they will be wholly unable to say to the Dominions or the Colonies as to what is the decision in regard to wheat and meat. They must not, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, bring any pressure of any sort, kind or description to bear upon the Commissioners. Once they have given the Commissioners this power, they will have put it outside their own power completely if they act honestly and in accordance with what they themselves say is a proper principle. They put it completely outside their power to promise the Dominions a tariff on wheat or meat.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that? Is that the policy? Is the Lord President of the Council satisfied that he desires the Government to be put in that position? Is he going to advertise tonight to the Dominions that henceforth we have removed completely from the ambit of discussion at Ottawa any question of taxation of wheat or meat? He has to decide one thing or the other. Either he has to admit to the Committee now that the Government will, if necessary, put pressure upon the Commissioners to decide to tax wheat or meat, or take wheat or meat out of the Free List if they think that it is right in accordance with political decision, or else he has to say, "We are going to leave
it entirely to the non-political body, to the Commissioners, and we, the politicians, will take no part in the decision, So that we give you, the Dominions, notice as from to-night that this matter has been removed from the political arena, and you cannot hope for us to discuss it at Ottawa. You may rely upon Sir George May and his friends considering it as purely an economic matter in this country, and they will come to a decision."
This is the position into which the Government are putting themselves tonight unless they accept the Amendment. I feel convinced from the speech from the Government Front Bench that they have not the slightest realisation of what they are doing. It is only too obvious that they have no plan. They have not even realised what the Clause which they are asking us to pass is doing. Much less have they thought of the consequences which it is likely to bring as regards the Ottawa Conference. I hope the Dominions will realise when this Clause is passed, if it is passed without this Amendment, that the Government are definitely taking away the possibility of any political arrangement as regards the taxation of wheat and meat. If that is what the Government want, they will go forward and do it, quite apart from any question of the promises given to the country, or the understanding of the poor, deluded Cabinet Ministers who now sit at the latter end of the Front Bench in order that they may be less seen when they blush at the terrible betrayal which is now being brought upon them by this Clause. [Interruption.] One hon. Member is so depressed that he says "Oh!" I assure him that on the passing of the Import Duties Act the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland believed as most of us believed, that wheat and meat had been safely put into a Schedule from whence they would never be removed except by the order of this House. I am satisfied that all the Liberals in the National Government, all the real Liberals in the National Government believed that. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I offended the hon. and gallant Member by including him in that category. I beg the Government seriously to consider this question as to whether they wish at this stage prematurely to bring to an end the possi-
bility of discussion at Ottawa, by giving Sir George May the control of this matter, or whether they intend to retain it in the political field, which they can only do by accepting the Amendment.

Sir BASIL PETO: I should not have intervened had it not been for the remarkable "Alice through the Looking Glass" speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). Wheat and meat are in a Schedule of free imports into this country. This Clause of the Finance Bill proposes to make it possible for the Advisory Committee to take those two articles out of that Free List, if they so choose. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) put a sort of conundrum to the Lord President of the Council, which I can well imagine he would not think of replying to, because it was too obvious to need any reply. He said that it would cause embarrassment to the Government representatives at Ottawa if this Clause in the Finance Bill had been operated upon and these two articles had been removed from the Free List by the committee. Can anyone suggest that it would not be an enormous advantage to the negotiations at Ottawa if there was a duty of 10 or any other per cent. placed on meat imported from foreign countries, and that it would not be of assistance to their negotiations to be able to say that half that duty would be removed in favour of Dominion meat. The hon. and learned Member is looking at it through the looking-glass upside down, wrong way about. Far from taking control from the Government, let him remember that this is only a question of a recommendation made to the Government.
It is for the Government to decide whether or not they accept the recommendation. Supposing the recommendation to have been made at the identical moment when they were negotiating with the Dominions at Ottawa, they would decide whether they wanted to accept the recommendation or not; but, so far as their negotiations went, it would be of enormous assistance to them to know that in the opinion of these three impartial, non-political gentlemen, it was in the general interest of the country that there should be some duty upon wheat and meat imported from foreign countries.
I have been spending the Whitsuntide vacation in a part of the country where
meat is absolutely vital, and where the farmers consider that the agricultural policy of the Government has done practically nothing to help them. Store cattle which were bought for feeding through the spring are now worth less than when they were bought, and they do not know when the market is going to finish dropping. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite correct when he said that hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. Either they are in favour of a price which will enable farmers to pay honest wages to agricultural labourers or they are not. They must decide upon which leg they are going to stand. It is no good saying one thing one day and another thing the next. By this Amendment they are proposing to say that certain articles are so sacred that whatever other powers may be put into the hands of this Committee these two particular articles must be kept outside. What the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, East (Sir S. Cripps) says in effect, is that there is a Free List and in that Free List are two articles which mainly concern the produce of the Dominions, but that we cannot do anything about them. This Clause is vital to the negotiations at Ottawa and it must foe left with no exception. This is not an Amendment in the interests of the working classes, and it is directly contrary to the national interests in the present financial crisis. The electorate voted for a free hand for the Government. This Clause gives them a free hand. The Amendment proposes to restrict that free hand in a matter which is vital to the negotiations on Empire policy.

Mr. McENTEE: The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) contends that a tariff on wheat and meat will mean better prices for British farmers and that therefore agricultural labourers will be able to get a decent wage. May I point out to him that in those agricultural districts where a good price is obtained and where farmers are making considerable profits at the present time good wages are not paid. It was necessary for this House to set up wages boards to compel farmers in these districts to pay a reasonable wage to agricultural labourers. An attempt is being made by the Clause to take from this House the power to say whether a tax shall or shall not be imposed on the people, particularly on the food of the people.
In regard to meat, there are probably millions of people in this country who, if they are prevented from buying cheap meat imported from the Argentine and other places, will not be able to purchase any meat at all. The hon. Baronet has talked about the agricultural area that he represents and other similar areas. A great number of agricultural workers in those constituences scarcely ever get any meat at all to eat. Certainly they are rarely able to buy any English meat. I have travelled amongst them and know them intimately and personally. The hon. Baronet and his friends can enjoy the best meat that his constituency can produce, and they talk as if a, difference in price was of no importance to anyone except the farmer. But the price is of considerable importance to the agricultural labourers in his constituency, and of equal importance to the ordinary casual labourers in my constituency and in others. We know that the imposition of a tax will increase the price of meat, and for that reason we oppose it, as we have opposed taxes on tea and sugar.
An attempt is being made, and deliberately made, by the Government and its supporters to reduce the purchasing power of wages, and so, indirectly, to reduce wages. The right hon. Gentleman who replied for the Government adopted a policy commonly adopted by third-class lawyers—when he had no case he abused the other side. But he made no reply at all to the definite questions that were put to him as to the Government's policy. It was no reply for him to ask, "What is your policy? What do you suggest?" It is not an Opposition's duty to suggest policy to the Government, and if any suggestion were made the Government would not be very willing to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman made one of his clever speeches which told the House nothing. Every Member here ought to desire the privileges and rights of the House of Commons to be maintained. Here is a definite attempt to take away the right of' Parliament to determine what taxes shall and shall not be imposed on the people and hand over that right to a body of gentlemen who are, we are told, very clever and non-political. I like the suggestion that they are non-political. Everyone knows their policy and their
politics. It was because of their politics that they were appointed. Does anyone suggest that a member of the Socialist party would have been appointed to that committee? Would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) suggest that anyone known to be a Free Trader would have been appointed to that committee? Of course, their policy and their prejudices are known to hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. Their bias in the direction of tariffs is known. It is known that they will carry out the policy desired by the Conservative section of the Government.

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to make this unwarranted attack upon a body which is removed from the Floor of this House?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the salaries of this body are borne upon the Estimates laid before this House and not on the Consolidated Fund, consequently they are not immune from criticism.

Mr. McENTEE: This is the second time to-night that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has thought it necessary to interrupt me on a point of Order, which turns out to be not a point of Order at all. [Interruption.] I was sent here to express my opinions. The Chairman has given me permission to do so, and I am going to do so. I am not going to allow any Member other than the Chairman to determine how long I shall speak, or what I shall say. [Interruption.] Hon. Members behind me who interrupt ought to know better than to show such bad manners. As I was saying, this is a direct tax on poor people. Meat and wheat are used mainly by poor people, but English meat is not used mainly by poor people, because they cannot afford it. They purchase the type of meat which their wages enable them to purchase, when they can purchase any at all. In the case of many of them it is not very often that they can afford to purchase meat at all. This Committee has the right to say that no Government ought to take away from Parliament the privilege of determining taxation and to hand over that privilege to any body, however impartial it may be said to be. I deny their impartiality. Had they been known to belong to certain political parties, they would never have been appointed to that position. They are partial people and people with a bias, and
they will use that bias in the interests of the purpose for which they have been appointed. The Government will know their recommendations beforehand and those recommendations will be accepted because they have been known beforehand. Therefore I enter the strongest possible protest against allowing these people to undertake duties which ought to be undertaken only by Parliament. I am

glad of the opportunity of going into the Lobby against this pernicious system of doling out the power to legislate to people outside who are known to have a bias in favour of the Conservative point of view.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 282.

Division No. 192.]
AYES.
[11.31 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hirst, George Henry
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nathan, Major H. L.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Pickering, Ernest H.


Buchanan, George
Johnstons, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jonas, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edwards, Charles
Leonard, William
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Logan, David Gilbert
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
White, Henry Graham


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mabane, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McKeag, William
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley(Middlesbro, W).
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Maclenn, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. Groves and Mr. Tinker.


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Chalmers, John Rutherford
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Fox, Sir Gifford


Balley, Eric Alfred George
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colville, John
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Conant, R. J. E.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cook, Thomas A.
God, Sir Park


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cooke, Douglas
Goldie, Noel B.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cooper, A. Duff
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gower, Sir Robert


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Cranborne, Viscount
Graves, Marjorie


Boothby, Robert John Graham
Craven-Ellis, William
Greene, William P. C.


Borodale, Viscount
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Bossom, A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Grimston, R. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davidson. Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bracken, Brendan
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hales, Harold K.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Dickie, John P.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Donner, P. W.
Harbord, Arthur


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Doran, Edward
Hartland, George A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Burghley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Burnett, John George
Duggan, Hubert John
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Dunglass, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromisy)
Eastwood, John Francis
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Ednam, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Campbell-Johnston. Malcolm
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hope, Capt. Arthur O. J. (Aston)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Carver, Major William H.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Castle Stewart, Earl
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hornby, Frank


Horsbrugh, Florence
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Savory, Samuel Servington


Howard, Tom Forrest
Moreing, Adrian C.
Scone, Lord


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Selley, Harry R.


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Morrison, William Shepherd
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Munro, Patrick
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Nail-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Sinclair, Col. T.(Queen's Unv., Belfast)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Slater, John


Jamieson, Douglas
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Jennings, Roland
North, Captain Edward T.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-in-F.)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
O'Connor, Terence James
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Ker, J. Campbell
Palmer, Francis Noel
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Patrick, Colin M.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Pearson, William G.
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Peat, Charles U.
Stevenson, James


Knebworth, Viscount
Penny, Sir George
Stones, James


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Percy, Lord Eustace
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Strauss, Edward A.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Petherick, M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leckie, J. A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bliston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Levy, Thomas
Picktord, Hon. Mary Ada
Tate, Mavis Constance


Lewis, Oswald
Potter, John
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)


Liddall, Walter S.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Templeton, William P.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Pybus, Percy John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


McKie, John Hamilton
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Robinson, John Roland
Weymouth, Viscount


Magnay, Thomat
Ropner, Colonel L.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Rosbotham, S. T.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Ross, Ronald D.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mason, Col Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wise, Alfred R.


Milne, Charles
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Womersley, Waller James


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)



Mitcheson, G. G.
Salmon, Major Isldore
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Molson, A. Hugh Eisdale
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Commander Southby and Mr.




Blindell.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.— [Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the. House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eighteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.